NO. 81-326 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF YONTANA 

1982 

GLORIA DAWN PECKENPAUGH, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

VS . 

KEIL ORLAN PECKENPAUGH , 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Park 

Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judqe presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Goetz, Madden & Dunn, Bozeman, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Thomas I. Sabo, Rozeman, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: September 3, 1982 

Decided: December 2, 1932 

Filed: Dl3 " 2 1982 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

The mzrriage of Keii Orlan Peckenpaugh and Gloria 

Dawn Peckenpaugh was dissolved iri the District Court of 

the Sixth Judicial District, Park County. The husband (Keil) 

appeals the award of maintenance to the wife (Gloria). 

The parties were married on March 31, 1974. Both had been 

married before, and Keil by his previous marriage fathered 

two boys, both having reacIxd maj~ritjr. Keil is a truckdriver 

who owns and operates a Peterbilt tractor with a flatbed 

trailer. Gloria has been a housewife, including caring for 

Keil's two sons, and has been an occasional truckdriver with 

her husband. 

The total value of all assets of the marriage as valued 

by the District Court was $78,042.00, as follows: 

Item Value 

1. Mobile Home - 1978 Windsor 14' x 75' $21,500.00 

2. 1977 Honda GL 1000 Motorcycle 2,700.00 

3. Peterbilt - 1975 Model 352COE 

4. Trailer - 1977 Raven 40' flatbed 9,500.00 

5. Pontiac - 1979 Firebird Trans Am 6,500.00 

6. Personal property retained in house when 

wife left 3,909.00 

7. Money taken by Gloria Peckenpaugh when 

she left 2,200.00 

8. Personal property taken by Gloria 

Peckenpaugh when she left --- 2,233.00 

TOTAL ASSETS $78,042.00 

During the marriage the parties accumulated substantial 

debts. The court found the liabilities of the marriage 

totaled $112,073.34, as follows: 
Liability Amount 

1. Note, First Security Bank, Livingston, 

Montana (secured by 1977 Peterbilt) $ 7,055.39 

2. Note, First Security Eank, Livingston, 

24ontana (secured by 1979 Pontiac and 

1977 Ravens trailer) 10,194.05 

3. Note, First Security Bank, Livingston, 

Montana (secured by 1978 Windsor mobile 

home ) 19,078.36 

4. Note, 0. F. Peckenpaugh (secured, second 

lien, 1977 Peterbilt, 1977 Ravens and 

1979 Pontiac) 65,000.00 

5. Note, First Security Eank, Livingston, 

Montana 9,432.55 

6. Hager Welding, Missoula, Montana 163.00 

7. Tire-Rama, Billings, Montana 692.80 

8. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph 210.44 

9. Park Electric Co-op 134.15 

10. Park Clinic, Livingston, Montana 107.10 

TOTAL LIABILITIES 

The court awarded Gloria the following assets: 

Item Value 

1. Money taken by Gloria Peckenpaugh 

when she left $2,200.00 

2. Personal property taken by Gloria 

Peckenpaugh when she left, now in 

her possession 

3. Personal items owned by petitioner 

left in the mobile home Value 

Undetermined 

Reil was awarded the remaining assets. 

The court further found: 

"That by reason of the Court distributing all 

of the assets wherein the respondent can reside 

or can make a living or has the use of such as 

the automobile, the respondent should then be 

responsible for the indebtedness of $47,073.00 

plus the indebtedness to his father, 0. F. 

Peckenpaugh of $65,000.00." 
The District Court originally awarded maintenance to 

Gloria of $500 per month for a two year period. After 

considering an affidavit and arguments of KeiZ, the court 

amended the maintenance payments to $300 per month for 40 

months, with the same total of $12,000 as previously awarded. 

In support of its findings and conclusi~ns, the court 

prepared a memorandum which stated: 

"The above case presented some difficult questions in the light of the extensive indebtedness owed by the parties. However, if you exclude the indebtedness to the respondent's 

father, the indebtedness is not great in light 

of the assets that the respondent is retaining. 

Number one - the respondent has a home to live 

in, he has a new automobile, an expensive truck 

and trailer with which to make a living and 

a Honda motorcycle. In contrast to that we 

find that the wife has had $2,000.00 plus 

$2,230.00 worth of personal property and some 

additional assets left in the home. The wife 

is without particular training with which to 

make a living while the husband has the truck 

with which he can make a fairly substantial 

living if he so desires and the wife is 

desirous to seek and maintain herself as a 

beauty operator but needs to attend school. 

Obviously she has no assets with which to do 

SO. 

"If you examine the overall picture, it is 

seen that the petitioner has not only served 

as a housewife but served as a mother for the 

children of the respondent during the period 

of marriage, cared for them, provided for them 

and in addition she worked along with the respondent in the trucking business driving a truck. 

From all of that it is clear that she should 

not be put out in the world to fend by herself 

as best she can following the dissolution of 

the marriage without any assets whatsoever. . . 

"The legislature in 40-4-202 provided that in 

dividing the property the Court shall consider 

the health, station, occupation, amount and 

sources of income and vocational schools, as 

well as the opportunity for each for the future 

acquisition of capital assets and income. In 

Section 40-4-203, MCA, the legislature directed 

that in awarding maintenance that the Court 

should consider the time necessary to acquire 

sufficient education or training to enable the 

party seeking maintenance to find appropriate 

employment. This then was followed by me in 

making the decision I reached. 
"As stated in the findings, the Court is not 

persuaded by the idea that the respondent is 

going to be disinherited by his father. His 

testimony was to the effect that he was disinherited by reason of his marriage to the petitioner 

but this is terminated and dissolved and he is 

the only heir of his father who is a man of substantial means and for this reason the Court 

did not give as much weight to the indebtedness 

to the father as you would if this were owed to 

a banking institution. The petitioner did testify 

that the advance of this money was to he an 

advance distribution of his inheritance and subsequent to that time a promissory note was 

executed but the Court is not convinced that if 

there is a failure to pay on a due date the 

father will foreclose upon the son. In any 

event, the son has the capability of earning 

money from the use of the truck and can, therefore 

the petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation to 

enable her to make a living and for this reason 

the same has been ordered." 

The standard of review of the District Court is set 

forth in Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., as follows: 

"Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless 

clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be 

given to the opportunity of the trial court to 

judge of the credibility of the witness." 

We have held that this Court's function is to review the 

lower court's findings in light of the record to make certain 

the findings are not clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of 

LeProwse (1982), - Mont . - , 646 P.2d 526, 33 St.Rep. 

1053; Jensen v. Jensen (1981), Mont . - , 629 P.2d 765, 

The District Court placed with Keil the responsibility 

for all the marital liabilities as well as requirinq maintenance payments for 40 months. Keil was also given the 

benefits of the indebtedness in a home, a new automobile, 

and a tractor-trailer with which to support himself. Gloria 

received $2,200 in cash, some personal belongings and is 

without a means of support, although she would like to attend 

classes at a beauty college. Keil has a gross income of 

$1,500 per month. The court, after considering Keil's 
monthly expenses, found that he was able to pay Gloria 

$300 per month maintenance enabling her to attend a beauty 

college. We find no clear error by the District Court in 

requiring the maintenance payments. 

Affirmed. 

We Concur: 

Chief Judfice