NO. 91-326 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

SANDY ROBERSON, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, A?R 9 - 1992 

and 

JERRY ROBERSON, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Jerald B. Roberson, Pro Se, Chattanooga, Tennessee 

For Respondent: 

Cameron G. Ferguson, Great Falls, Montana 

Filed: 

submitted on Briefs: December 4, 1991 

Decided: April 9, 1992 

, 

P Clerk 
Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Jerry Roberson (Husband) appeals the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law and judgment of the Eighth Judicial District, 

Cascade County, which dissolved his marriage to Sandy Roberson 

(Wife), distributed the marital estate, and provided child support. 

We affirm. 

Husband presents eleven issues on appeal. We consolidate 

these issues as follows: 

1. Did the District Court err in distributing the marital 

estate? 

2. Did the District Court err in determining Husband's child 

support obligation? 

Husband and Wife were married on October 21, 1972. The 

marriage produced four children: Michelle, Jason, Jennifer and 

Suzanne. At the time of trial, Wife resided with the children in 

the family home and Husband was incarcerated at Montana State 

Prison. Husband has been diagnosed with cancer. Wife works as a 

nurse's assistant earning $13,000 annually. Husband receives 

$16,330 annually in military retirement benefits throughout his 

lifetime. 

Wife petitioned for legal separation on February 3, 1989. On 

January 12, 1990, Wife moved to amend her petition to a petition 

for dissolution of marriage. The District Court granted this 

amendment on February 6, 1990. 
The District Court heard testimony on this matter on May 11, 

1990, and February 7, 1991. In findings of fact, conclusions of 

law and judgment dated March 12, 1991, the District Court dissolved 

the marriage, distributedthe marital assets and provided for child 

support. From this order, Husband now appeals. 

1. Did the District Court err in distributing the marital 

estate? 

Husband argues that the District Court used the wrong figures 

in the fraction used to calculate the marital interest in his 

military retirement benefits. The District Court concluded that 

Wife was entitled to 28% of Husband's military retirement benefits 

based on the fraction of his years of service during the marriage 

over his years of total service. Husband argues that Wife is 

entitled to 26.9% of his military retirement benefits based on his 

computation using figures not presented at trial. 

Military retirement benefits are marital assets. In Re the 

Marriage of Cooper (1990), 243 Mont. 175, 178, 793 P.2d 810, 812. 

To calculate a spouse's share of military retirement benefits, the 

following formula has been devised: 

Years of Service 

Durins Marriase X Monthly Benefit X I/ 2 

Years of Total (after taxes) 

Service 
Under this method, the marital interest is represented by 

a fraction, the numerator of which is the length of the 

employee's service duringthe marriage, and the denominator is the employee's total length of service. The 

fraction is then applied to each benefit payment, lump or 

periodic, to determine the portion earned during the 

marriage. Although the extent of the marital interest is 

determined as of the date of the dissolution, the benefit 

factors to be applied to the pension credits earned 

during the marriage are those in effect at retirement. 

Thus, the non-employee spouse is entitled to increases or 

accruals on her interest because of the delay in receiving those payments. 

In Re the Marriage of Rolfe (1988), 234 Mont. 294, 298, 766 P.2d 

223, 226 (citation omitted) 

The record indicates that Husband's service during the 

marriage was 14.5 years. He served a total of 26 years. Using the 

above formula, Wife's share of Husband's military retirement 

benefits is 28%. We note that Husband did not object to these 

figures presented at trial and used by the District Court to 

determine the parties' shares in the military retirement benefits. 

Based on the figures presented at trial and the above formula, we 

hold that the District Court properly determined that Wife was 

entitled to 28% of Husband's military retirement benefits. In the 

event Husband's military retirement benefits increase due to cost 

of living or other increases, Wife's interest will increase 

proportionately. 

The rest of the marital estate consists of a home appraised at 

$66,000 with an outstanding mortgage of $45,571; two life insurance 

policies, one insuring Wife's life and one insuring Husband's life; 
a 1988 Ford Tempo subject to a lien; two older vehicles: household 

furniture and miscellaneous belongings. The marital estate also 

includes various debts. The District Court awarded each party a 

50% interest in the home. It found Wife entitled to live in the 

home until the parties' youngest child reaches age eighteen and 

found her responsible for paying the house payments. Wife, 

however, has the option of selling the home at any time provided 

that the proceeds from the home sale are equally shared between the 

parties. The District Court further awarded: 1) each party his or 

her respective life insurance policy, 2) Wife the 1988 Ford Tempo 

and Husband the two other vehicles, and 3) Husband and Wife equal 

interests in the remaining property. The District Court further 

found Husband responsible for all debts of the marriage other than 

the house payments and the 1988 Ford Tempo loan, Wife responsible 

for paying back one-half of the funds she withdrew from a joint 

checking account during the parties' separation, and both parties 

equally responsible for major maintenance costs associated with the 

home. Husband raises arguments with regard to the District Court's 

distribution of all of these assets and debts. 

The District Court holds far-reaching discretion in dividing 

marital property. In Re the Marriage of Skinner (1989), 240 Mont. 

299, 304, 783 P.2d 1350, 1353 (citations omitted). This Court will 

not reverse a District Court's judgment unless a clear abuse of 

discretion is shown. Skinner, 240 Mont. at 304, 783 P.2d at 1353. 
After a careful review of the record and the District Court's 

findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment, we hold that 

the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it distributed 

the marital estate of Husband and Wife. 

2. Did the District Court err in determining Husband's child 

support obligation? 

The District Court awarded Wife 42.7% of the remaining 72% of 

Husband's military retirement benefits for child support based on 

the Uniform Child Support Guidelines (Guidelines). The District 

Court further found Husband responsible for the children's 

hospital, medical, dental, optical and prescription drug expenses 

not otherwise covered by insurance. Husband argues that the 

District Court used incorrect income figures of the parties when it 

applied the Guidelines. Husband, however, failed to object to the 

income figures presented at trial. Husband further argues that the 

children's medical expenses should be prorated between the parties 

under the Guidelines. 

Based on the figures presented at trial, we hold that the 

District Court properly determined that Wife was entitled to 42.7% 

of Husband's remaining 72% of his military retirement benefits for 

child support. Additionally, we hold that the District Court did 

not abuse its discretion when it found Husband responsible for the 

children's medical expenses not covered by insurance based on the 
Husband's vested interest in his military retirement benefits, 

Wife's limited income as a nurse's assistant as related to the 

financial obligations of raising four children, and Husband's 

ability to find employment once he is released from prison. 

We affirm the District Court's March 12, 1991 findings of 

fact, conclusions of law and judgment which dissolved Jerry and 

Sandy Robersonls marriage, distributed the parties' marital estate 

and provided for child support. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and 

shall be published by its filing as a public document with the 

Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to West Publishing Company. 

We concur: 
April 9, 1992 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

Jerald B. Roberson 

204 Central Drive 

Chattanooga, TN 37421 

CAMERON G. FERGUSON 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 1629 

Great Falls, MT 59403-1629 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA 

4 

BY: n/i I?\ && 

~e~ut~ /