81-47 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1981 

IN RE THE F4ARRIAGE OF 

MARY IAXON STRATFORD, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

JOHN HENRY STRATFORD, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Yellowstone, The IIonorable 

Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Berger, Sinclair & Nelson, Billings, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Davidson, Veeder, Raugh, Broeder & Poppler, 

Billings, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: April 15, 1981 

Decided: July 10, 1981 

Filed: WL 1 o 1981 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Mary Stratford petitioned for dissolution of her marriage 

to John Stratford on April 6, 1979, in the District Court of 

the Thirteenth Judicial District, in and for the County of 

Yellowstone. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 

10, 1980. On December 30, 1980, the district judge issued 

her final decree. John Stratford appeals from that decree. 

John and Mary Stratford were married in Billings in 

1947. At the time of the marriage, Mary was a school teacher. 

She continued to teach until 1951, when the first of the 

couple's three sons was born and she assumed the full 

time role of homemaker. John farmed from spring to fall on 

a 320-acre parcel located 20 miles south of Billings. John 

had made the downpayment on the farm in 1945, and the balance 

was paid during the marriage. John obtained employment in 

Billings, where the family resided, during the winters. All 

three homes which the family owned during the marriage were 

purchased with the joint monies of John and Mary. The farm 

grew in size during the marriage and currently comprises 

1,848 acres, 1,138 of which are cultivated. The acreage was 

accumulated through the efforts of both John and Mary. In 

1975, Stratford Farms, Incorporated, was formed as part of 

an estate plan. Eighty acres of the original 320 were 

inadvertently omitted from the corporation. John is president of the corporation and farm manager. He receives a 

salary of $900 a month and a home on the farm as payment 

for his services. Mary is secretary-treasurer of the corporation and is paid $1,000 per month for her bookkeeping for 

the corporation. She also works part-time at Sears ~oebuck. 

The shares in the corporation are currently distributed as 

follows: John, 13,762; Mary, 13,761; each of the three 
sons, 6,830. One of the sons resides on the farm and works 

with his father. 

The parties acquired other assets during the marriage. 

The net value of all assets was stipulated to at the time of 

dissolution. The major asset is Industrial Land and Realty, 

a joint venture between John Stratford and his brother. 

Mary's mother contributed funds which aided John in obtaining 

his interest in Industrial Land. Mary receives one half of 

John's monthly distribution from the venture, or $750. Mary 

received approximately $28,500 during the marriage by gift 

and devise from her mother. She has invested in stocks. 

John is a partner in a four-person partnership, C.A.J.Y. 

The parties also have bank accounts, IRA accounts and personal 

property . 

The district judge made a property disposition in lieu 

of maintenance. Each party received one half of all distributions of earnings from Industrial Land and Realty. In the 

event the husband liquidates his interest, the wife is to 

receive one half of his net proceeds. The wife received the 

family home in Billings, as well as the household furnishings 

and appliances. The husband was awarded the 80-acre tract 

which was not incorporated into Stratford Farms and the 

furnishings and appliances located at the farmhouse. The 

wife kept the inheritance from her mother. The parties kept 

their own bank accounts, IRA accounts, life insurance policies 

and vehicles. The husband retained his interest in the 

C.A.J.Y. partnership. The parties retained their previously 

established shares in Stratford Farms. The parties were 

made responsible for their own liabilities, as well as for 

their own costs and fees in the dissolution action. 

Appellant raises numerous issues concerning whether the 

evidence supports the findings of the district judge and 
whether the judge ignored certain evidence in applying the 

factors to be considered in arriving at an equitable disposition 

of property under section 40-4-202, MCA. We have reviewed 

the evidence and examined the findings and conclusions of 

the District Court. Findings of fact and conclusions of law 

provide a foundation for the court's judgment. Marriage of 

Barron (1978), 177 Mont. 161, 580 P.2d 936. This foundation 

need not consist of a multitude of evidentiary facts, but 

the findings of fact must set forth a recordation of the 

essential and determining facts upon which the court rested 

its conclusions of law and without which the judgment would 

lack support. Jones v. Jones (1980), - Mont. , 620 

P.2d 850, 37 St.Rep. 1973. A district court has far-reaching 

discretion in resolving property divisions and its judgment 

will not be altered unless a clear abuse of that discretion 

is shown. The criteria for reviewing the District Court's 

discretion is: Did the court in the exercise of its discretion 

act arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment, 

or exceed the bounds of reason in view of all the circumstances. 

Zell v. Zell (1977), 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33. The District 

Court made findings on those elements of section 40-4-202, 

MCA, which are pertinent to this case, and the findings are 

supported by the evidence. We find no abuse of discretion. 

Appellant also raises several issues in relation to the 

ownership of the stock in Stratford Farms, Incorporated. 

These issues can be disposed of by confronting the central 

question: Did the District Court err by failing to distribute 

the wife's stock in the farm corporation to the husband? 

The district judge considered the alternative dispositions 

of Stratford Farms, Incorporated, that were available to 

her. She heard the testimony of two of the three sons who 
own stock in the corporation, both of whom said that they 

would be able to vote their stock without regard to personal 

disputes between their parents. The judge found that there 

would be serious tax consequences if she were to order 

liquidation of the farm corporation. This finding was 

supported by the testimony of the accountant who appeared at 

the hearing. The judge concluded it to be in the best 

interests of the estate that the ownership of Stratford 

Farms not be transferred or sold. There was ample evidence 

to support the District Court order continuing the established 

ownership and operation of the farm corporation. The tax 

consequences of a transfer or sale were given due consideration. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its 

discretion by not distributing the wife's corporate stock to 

the husband. 

Finally, appellant asserts that it was error for the 

district judge to sustain objections to the cross-examination 

of the wife. Appellant was seeking to minimize the value of 

his wife's contributions to the marriage. To this end, the 

wife was questioned as to whether the living quarters on the 

farm could have been upgraded to equal those in town, whether 

she characterized herself as a "city girl", and whether she 

spent more time playing bridge than keeping the corporate 

books. The information which counsel for appellant was 

attempting to solicit was irrelevant. The district judge 

did not err in sustaining objections to these inquiries. 

We have found that the District Court committed no 
We concur: 

ph--Q4$f@~d& Chief Justice