No. 81-433 

IN TIE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE: OF MOIJTANA 

1982 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

PE-IYLLIS M. GOODI4UNDSON, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

DARRELL D. GOODMUNDSGN, 

Res2ondent and ilppellant. 

Apgeal from: District Court of the ?Jintli Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Teton, The Honorable 

Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Alexander & Eaucus, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Conner, Baiz & Olson, Great Falls, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: October 26, 1982 

Decided: December 23, 1982 
Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The husband appeals from judgment issued by the District 

Court of the Eighth Judicial District , Cascade County, dis tributing the marital property of the parties. 

The husband claims that the District 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 af f 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 in partnership with 

his father. The partnership farmed about 2,480 acres at the time 

the wife petitioned for dissolution. The 2,480 acres are farmed 

as one unit despite separate titles. The husband has 325 acres 

in his name, his parents have 640 acres in their names, 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 Court made 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 

finally total 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 two instances: of the family home 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 

suggestions of the parties. 

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 the District 

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 cons ider the wife 's inheritance and improperly considered the 

husband s expected inheritance; 3) the District 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 illogically averaged 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 in grain bins; 10) some of 

the landlord's grain was improperly included as a marital asset; 

11) the District Court erroneously projected the value of the 

1981 grain crop; 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. We agree. 

The standard for review of findings made by a District Court 

is the same whether the District Court 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 in adopting proposed findings is more an ethical than a 

legal breach. Error occurs when the proposed findings are relied 
upon 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 participation by the District Court. 

The test in reviewing the findings, then, is whether the 

District Court abused its discretion. That is, whether the 

District Court acted arbitrarily without 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 recommendation of a party or a layman over that of 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 . , 631 P.2d 700, 

38 St.Rep. 1109. 

Here, the District Court adopted some findings supported by 

the wife'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 simply because the findings are 

supported by the evidence and that is the determinative test. 

Specifically, the record supports the District Court'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 for over $700 per 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 

that the range in value was from $621 to $743 per acre. 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 the husband'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 for her daughter, 

a car for herself, recarpeted the family home, and built a fence. 

Under section 40-4-202, MCA, the District Court must consider 

future acquisition of assets. The husband's expectation of a 

sizeable inheritance is therefore a valid consideration in the 

equitable distribution of the marital property. 

The husband claims all of the purchase price of a parcel of 

land, the Niles Place, 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 was pre-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 husband Is testimony was con£ using and 

contradictory as to whether 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, 

the money was withdrawn immediately a£ ter the wife petitioned for 

dissolution of the marriage. 

The projected value of the 1981 growing 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 distribution decree. 

The District Court's judgm 

,i-" 

We concur: