81-47 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981

INRE 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 1981Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the opinion of the Court. Mary Stratfordpetitioned for dissolution of her marriage toJohn Stratford on April 6, 1979, inthe DistrictCourt of the Thirteenth Judicial District, inand for the County of Yellowstone. An evidentiary hearing 

### was held on November 10, 1980. On December 30, 1980, the districtjudge issued her final decree. John Stratford appeals from thatdecree. John and Mary Stratfordwere married inBillings in 1947. Atthe time of the marriage, Mary was a school teacher. She continued to teach until 1951, when the firstof the couple's three sons was born and she assumed the full 

### timerole of homemaker. John farmed from spring to fallon

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

### sizeduring the marriage and currently comprises 1,848 acres, 1,138 of which arecultivated. The acreage was accumulated through the effortsof both John and Mary. In 1975, StratfordFarms, Incorporated, was formed aspart of

an estateplan. Eighty acres of the original 320 

### were inadvertently omitted from the corporation. John 

### ispresident of the corporation and farm manager. Hereceives 

### a salaryof $900 

### a month and a home on the farm aspayment for his services. Mary 

### is secretary-treasurer of the corporation and 

### ispaid $1,000 per month for her bookkeeping for the corporation. She alsoworks part-time atSears ~oebuck. The shares inthe corporation are currently distributed as follows: John, 13,762; Mary, 13,761; each of the threesons, 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 

### allassets

### was stipulated to atthe 

### timeof 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 inobtaining his interest inIndustrial 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 ina four-person partnership, C.A.J.Y. The parties also have bank accounts, 

### IRA accounts and personal property

# . The districtjudge made a property disposition inlieu of maintenance. Each party received one half of alldistributions 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 inBillings, as

### well as the household furnishings and appliances. The husband was awarded the 80-acre tract which was not incorporated into StratfordFarms and the furnishings and appliances located atthe farmhouse. The wife kept the inheritance from her mother. The parties kept their own bank accounts, 

### IRA accounts, lifeinsurancepolicies and vehicles. The husband retained his interest inthe C.A.J.Y. partnership. The parties retained their previously established shares inStratfordFarms. The parties 

### were made responsible for their own liabilities, aswell as for their own costs and fees inthe dissolution action. Appellant raisesnumerous issues concerning whether the evidence supports the findings of the districtjudge andwhether the judge ignored certain evidence inapplying the factors to be considered inarriving 

### atan equitable disposition of property under section 40-4-202, MCA. Wehave reviewed the evidence and examined the findings and conclusions of the DistrictCourt. Findings of factand conclusions of law provide a foundation for the court's judgment. Marriage of Barron (1978), 177Mont. 161, 580 P.2d 936. This foundation need not consist of a multitude of evidentiary facts, but the findings of factmust 

### 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 districtcourt has far-reaching discretion inresolving property divisions and 

### its judgment 

### willnot be altered unless a clear abuse of thatdiscretion 

### is shown. The criteriafor reviewing the DistrictCourt's discretion 

### is: Did the court in the exercise of 

### its discretion actarbitrarilywithout employment of conscientious judgment,

or exceed the bounds of reason 

### inview of allthe 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 arepertinent to this case, and the findings are supported by the evidence. We find no abuse of discretion. Appellant also raises several issues inrelation to the ownership of the stock inStratford Farms, Incorporated. These issues can be disposed of by confronting the central question: Did the DistrictCourt 

### err by failing to distribute the wife's stock inthe farm corporation to the husband? The districtjudge considered the alternative dispositions of StratfordFarms, Incorporated, that

### were available to her. She heard the testimony of two of the three sons whoown stock inthe corporation, both of whom said that they would be able to vote their stock without regard topersonal disputes between their parents. The judge found that there would be serious tax consequences if she 

### were toorder liquidation of the farm corporation. This finding 

### was supported by the testimony of the accountant who appeared at the hearing. The judge concluded 

### it tobe inthe best interests of the estate that the ownership of Stratford Farms not be transferred or sold. There was ample evidence to support the DistrictCourt 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 discretionby not distributing the wife's corporate stock to the husband. Finally, appellant 

### asserts that 

### itwas error for the districtjudge to sustainobjections to the cross-examination of the wife. Appellant was seeking tominimize the value of hiswife's contributions to the marriage. To this end, the wife was questioned as towhether the living quarters on the farm could have been upgraded to equal those intown, whether she characterized herself asa "citygirl", and whether she spentmore time playing bridge than keeping the corporate books. The information which counsel for appellantwas attempting to solicitwas irrelevant. The districtjudge did not err in sustaining objections to these inquiries. Wehave found that the DistrictCourt committed no

### We concur: 

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

### Justice