No. 81-433 INTIE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE: OF MOIJTANA 1982

INRE THE MARRIAGE OF PE-IYLLISM. GOODI4UNDSON, Petitionerand Respondent,

DARRELL D. GOODMUNDSGN, Res2ondent andilppellant.

Apgeal from: DistrictCourtof the ?JintliJudicial District, Inand for theCountyof Teton, TheHonorable Joel G. Roth, Judgepresiding.

Counselof Record: For Appellant: Alexander & Eaucus, GreatFalls, Montana ForRespondent: Conner, Baiz & Olson, GreatFalls, Montana

Filed: Submittedon Briefs: October 26, 1982 Decided: December 23, 1982Mr. JusticeGene B. Daly delivered theOpinion of the Court.

The husband appeals from judgment issued by the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District

## , Cascade County, distributing themarital property of the parties. The husband claims thattheDistrict Court failed to exercise independent judgment by adopting 

### most of the wife's proposed findings. Because the District Court's judgment is supported by the record, 

### we cannot say the District Court abused 

### its discretion. The judgment is aff irmed

# . The parties 

### were married on October 3, 1954. The marriage



### was dissolved February 23, 1981. Throughout the marriage, the husband has worked as a dryland grain farmer inpartnership with hisfather. The partnership farmed about 2,480 acresatthe time the wife petitioned fordissolution. The 2,480 acres 

### are farmed

as one unit despite separate titles. The husband has 325 

### acres inhisname, hisparents have 640 acres in theirnames, the husband and father own 1,043 acres jointly, and the partnership leases about 480 acres. The wife has worked part-time, off and on, through the marriage. She has worked 

### as a librarian and a part-time mail carrier. The District Courtmade extensive findings, breaking down the value of tillable land, the liabilities of the parties, improvements to the land, an averaged value on the family home, two long lists of farm personal property and nonfarm personal property, the amount and value of stored grain, an estimate of growing crops, total liabilities for the marital estate, and finallytotal assets for the marital estate. Most of these findings 

### are taken from the values contained in the wife's proposed findings. The District Court did not adopt the wife's proposed findings in

### twoinstances: of the familyhome 

### was not included in the 

### marital estate; and the value of the 480 acre lease 

### was listed 

### as zero.The original judgment of the District Court was amended to correct 

### some mathematical 

### errors and 

### alter some values at the suggestionsof theparties. The husband argues on appeal that the District Court failed 

### to exercise independent judgment by accepting 

### most of the wife's proposed findings. Specifically, the husband 

### claims theDistrict Court erred in the following valuations: 1) the tillable farmland valuation of $650 

### is not supported by the testimony of either of the appraisers; 2) the District Court failed 

### to con
### sider the wife

### 's inheritance and improperly considered the husband 

### s expected inheritance; 3)theDistrict Court should have placed the entire value of the Niles Place in pre-marital property; 4) an old wooden grain bin 

### was improperly valued at $1,200; 5) the District Court illogicallyaveraged 

### two appraised values 

### to arrive at the value of the family home; 6) the values of the shop tools and wheat sprayers 

### are not supported by the record; 7) the values of the silver service and coin set were improperly considered; 8) the $23

## , 000 withdrawn by the husband from a joint savings account 

### was improperly used to offset the value of pre-marital property; 9) the District Court erred in estimating the amount of grain stored ingrainbins; 10)some of the landlord's grain was improperly included as a marital 

### asset; 11) the District Court erroneously projected the value of the 1981graincrop; and 12)a clerical error

### was not changed in that the $12,000 value placed on farm improvements should read $12,100. The wife claims the District Court's findings are supported by the record. Weagree. The standard for review of findingsmade by a District Court is the 

### same whether the DistrictCourt prepared the findings 

### or adopted a party's proposed findings. In 

### re the Marriage of LeProwse (1982), - Mont

# . -. --

.

## ,646 P.2d 526, 39 St.Rep. 1053. The error inadoptingproposed findings is

### more an ethical than a legalbreach. Error occurs when the proposed findings

### are reliedupon to the exclusion of the proper consideration of facts and the exercise of independent judgment. In re the Marriage of Hunter (1982), Mont

# . - - 

## , 369 P.2d 489, 39 St.Rep. 59. Here, the record reflects conscientious concern and participationby the District Court. The 

### test in reviewing the findings, then, 

### is whether the District Court abused 

### its discretion. That is, whether the DistrictCourt acted arbitrarilywithout employment of conscientious judgment, 

### or exceeded the bounds of reason in view of all the circumstances. Cranmore v. Cranmore (1982)

## , - Mont

# . I -- 649 P.2d 441, 39 St.Rep. 1361; Converse v. Converse (1982), Mont

# .--- ---

## ,645 P.2d 413, 39 St.Rep. 887. In adopting proposed values 

### or in setting its own, the District Court is free in its discretion to adopt the recommendationof a party 

### or a layman over thatof an expert. Dickerson

v

# . Dickerson (1980)

## , - Mont

# . - -

## ,614 P.2d 521, 37 St.Rep. 1286. Also, the District Court may average the values given by experts to arrive at an equitable solution. Converse, supra; In Re the Marriage of Jensen (1981), -- Mont

# . ,631P.2d 700, 38 St.Rep. 1109. Here, the District Court adopted some findings supported by thewife's valuations, 

### some findings that

### were averages of values 

### set by experts, and 

### some findings based on the husband's 

### testimony and that of his appraisers. The husband claims this is illogical and inconsistent, and the only way the District Court could have arrived at such findings 

### is by blindly following the wife's proposed findings. We disagree with the husband simplybecause the findings are supported by the evidence and that is the determinative test. Specifically, the record supports the DistrictCourt's findings that the tillable acreage 

### is worth $650 per acre. Two local landowners testified that they knew of recent 

### sales where similar land 

### was sold forover$700per acre. The wife testified that she believed the land 

### was worth $700 per 

### acre. While the

### two appraisers valued the land at $600 and $625 per acre, the District Court 

### was within its discretion not to accept these values. Dickerson, supra. Moreover, one appraiser acknowledged thatthe range invaluewas from$621to$743peracre. The $650 value is therefore supported by the record. The husband 

### claims next that the District Court failed to consider the wife's inheritance, and also, then improperly included thehusband's expectation of an inheritance. The record supports the conclusion that the wife spent all $20,000 of her inheritance received in 1975. She bought a 

### car forherdaughter,

a 

### car forherself, recarpeted the familyhome, and built a fence. Under section40-4-202, MCA, theDistrictCourt must consider future acquisition of 

### assets. The husband's expectation of a sizeable inheritance is therefore a valid consideration in the equitable distributionof themarital property. The husband 

### claims all of the purchase price of 

### a parcel of land, theNilesPlace, should be pre-marital property. While the husband testified that he thought his father had purchased the land prior 

### to his marriage; the deed for the land 

### was not recorded until after the parties 

### were married. The District Court therefore reasonably concluded that only the down-payment

on the land 

### waspre-marital property. The wife's appraiser 

### set 

### a $1,200 value on an old wooden grain bin. This value is therefore supported by record, regardless of whether the husband disagrees with this figure. Likewise, the wife's appraiser 

### set the values for the silver set and the coin collection. The District Court also acted within its discretion in estimating the amount of grain in the marital estate. These estimates 

### seem to be based, in part, on those made by the husband himself. Because the husbandIs testimony was con£using and contradictory as towhether the landlord owned part of the grain in one bin, the District Court could reasonably conclude the grain

### was properly within the

### marital estate.The record also supports the District Court's finding that the money the husband withdrew from a savings account owned jointly with the wife, 

### was marital property. The money 

### was in the joint account and not in the separate farm account. Also, themoney 

### was withdrawn immediately a£

### ter thewife petitioned for dissolutionof the marriage. The projected value of the 1981growing crop is also based on sufficient evidence. The District Court had in evidence the farm's income tax returns for the past four years, the estimated expenses, the estimated acreage planted, and the estimated value of the crops. Except for the admitted 

### clerical 

### error in the valuation of the farm improvements, the values used by the District Court 

### are supported by the evidence. The $100 

### error in the farm improvements valuation is not of enough significance to warrant amending the distributiondecree. The District Court's judgm

,i-" We concur: