No. 86-298 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1987 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

DOROTHY AYJNE JONES, 

Petitioner and R.espondent, 

and 

ALFRED LEROY JONES, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth ~udicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Morrow, Sedivy & Bennett; J. H. Morrow, Rozeman, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Komrners & Johnstone; James A. 

Johnstone, Bozeman, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: Oct. 23, 1986 

Decided: January 8, 1987 

Filed: JAN 6 - 1:3'3 
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Respondent Alfred Jones appeals the judgment entered by 

the Eighteenth Judicial District Court in the dissolution 

action between respondent and petitioner Dorothy Jones. 

Respondent appeals the property distribution. and maintenance 

award in favor of petitioner. We affirm. 

The parties were married on September 27, 1964, in Reno, 

Nevada. Alfred is now 48 years of age; Dorothy is 42. The 

children of the marriage have reached the age of majority and. 

are self-supporting. Alfred has been employed as a store 

manager of tire shops throughout the pacific northwest during 

the duration of the marriage. The past eight years he has 

been the store manager for Whalen Tire Shop in Bozeman, 

Montana. Alfred's salary is $2500 a month, plus he is 

covered by health and life insurance, and the company 

supplies him with a car for personal and business use. In 

addition, he has received yearly bonuses ranging from $4000 

to $8000, and has a vested interest in a profit sharing plan 

and a retirement pension plan with Whalen Tire Shop. 

Dorothy has experience in light bookkeeping and 

secretarial work. Dorothy's most recent employment was with 

the Gallatin County Health Department at a net monthly salary 

of $769. 

Dorothy filed a petition for dissolution on May 8, 1985, 

and moved out of the family home. On July 8, 1985, the 

District Court entered the decree of dissolution, reserving 

property distribution and maintenance award until a later 

date. Alfred was ordered to make Dorothy's monthly car 

payment and provide $100 monthly maintenance pending final 
resolution of the case. The parties' home was sold, with 

Dorothy and Alfred each taking $1500 and the remainder, 

approximately $45,000, being placed in an account. 

Dorothy quit her secretarial job in November, 1985, 

desiring to move to Spokane. She filed a motion for 

distribution of funds, requesting $4500 be distributed to her 

from the home sale proceeds to fund her move to Spokane and 

provide living expenses while she searched for employment. 

The court granted Dorothy's motion for distribution of funds. 

On December 2, 1985, the issues of maintenance and 

property distribution were heard. The District Court entered 

its findings of fact and conclusions of law on these matters 

January 8, 1986. Dorothy was awarded $400 monthly 

maintenance for a period of 5 years, half of which was to be 

placed in an individual retirement account (IRA). After five 

years maintenance would be reduced to $200 with all amounts 

to be placed in an IRA. The property was divided as follows: 

ASSETS : 

Furniture 

Furniture 

Blazer 

Riviera 

Trailer 

Tractor 

Insurance 

Stock 

Pension Plan 

Profit Sharing 

Plan 

Cash from sale 

of home 

Inheritance 

Balance of home 

sale 

Leroy IRA 

Dorothy IRA 

Home furniture 

P.E.R.S. 

VALUE 

4,500.00 

Undetermined 

GROSS 

TO WHOM DISTRIBUTED 

HUSBAND WIFE 

4,500.00 

Undetermined 
LIABILITIES --- VALUE TO WHOM DISTRIBUTED 

HUSBAND WIFE 

First Bank $ 3,766.00 $ 3,766.00 

First Security 1,578.00 1,578.00 

First Bank 3,480.00 3,480.00 

Visa 2,800.00 2,800.00 

TOTAL DEBT $ 11,624.00 ($ 11,624.00) 

NET ASSET $102,272.15 

NET DISTRIBUTION 

Both parties filed motions to amend the court's findings 

of fact and conclusions of law. Alfred objected to the 

property valuations adopted by the court and also requested 

that the maintenance award be eliminated. Dorothy objected 

to the $4500 furniture award believing such furniture was 

listed twice as an asset thereby overstating her actual. 

award. Dorothy also requested that the maintenance award be 

amended to eliminate the requirement that $200 be invested in 

an IRA each month. 

Following oral argument on the motions to amend, the 

District Court entered its order amending the maintenance 

award to eliminate the IRA requirement, hut adding a 

provision that maintenance would terminate should Dorothy 

remarry or cohabit with a man for a period in excess of two 

months. The court affirmed. its judgment in all other 

respects. Alfred appeals and raises the following issues: 

1) Did the District Court abuse its discretion in 

awarding Dorothy maintenance for a period of ten years? 

2) Did the District Court abuse its discretion in 

making the property distribution? 

Alfred contends Dorothy is not entitled to maintenance 

because there are no minor children to support, she is in 
good health and capable of working, and she received a 

substantial amount of property from the marital estate. 

Section 40-4-203, MCA, addresses the question of maintenance 

and provides for a maintenance award where the recipient 

spouse is unable to support herself and lacks sufficient 

property to provide for reasonable needs. Relevant factors 

in making a maintenance award are: 1) the financial 

resources of the recipient spouse; 2) the time necessary to 

acquire sufficient education to find appropriate employment; 

3) the standard of living established during the marriage; 4) 

the duration of the marriage; 5) the age and physical and 

emotional condition of the recipient spouse; 6) the ability 

of the spouse providing the maintenance to meet his own 

needs. 

A review of the record makes it clear the District Court 

considered all the relevant factors listed in S 40-4-203, 

MCA, in determining the maintenance award. Alfred has 

substantial income and is capable of paying $400 monthlv 

maintenance. Dorothy has moved to Spokane and is 

temporarily unemployed. Based upon her training and 

education, the job Dorothy obtains will not supply adequate 

income to meet the standard of living she enjoyed during the 

marriage. As noted by the District Court, Dorothy worked in 

the home and raised children for 20 years in addition to 

holding secretarial jobs to supplement the family income. 

The District Court has broad discretion in determining 

maintenance awards and this Court will not reverse the 

District Court unless clearly erroneous. In Re the Marriage 

of Schenck (Mont. 1984), 692 P.2d 6, 41 St.Fep. 2137. We 
find no abuse of discretion by the District Court in making 

the monthly maintenance award. 

The next issue is whether the property distribution was 

equitable. Alfred contends the District Court erred in 

speculating as to the parties' future income and ability to 

acquire property. This is incorrect. Section 40-4-202, MCA, 

specifically states the court shall consider "the opportunity 

of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income." 

In this instance, the District Court properly considered the 

parties' potential future incomes, as well as insurance and 

IRA protections. 

The District Court correctly valued Alfred's retirement 

and profit sharing plans based on the evidence before it. 

The court's computation placed an up to date value on these 

plans rather than the 1984 figure submitted by Alfred. We 

find no error. 

The District Court's findings of fact reveal that the 

factors listed in 5 40-4-202 (I), MCA, were considered by the 

court in making the distribution. The property distribution 

awarded an identical net amount to each party. The record. 

clearly supports the property distribution. 

The valuations adopted by the District Court regarding 

the parties' furniture, vehicles, and other items, were those 

submitted by Dorothy in her proposed findings of fact. 

Alfred disputed several of Dorothy's valuations yet he failed 

to place a value on these items in his proposed findings of 

fact. The District Court adopted Dorothy's valuations 

finding them to be more reasonable. We will not set aside 

the District Court's findings of fact unless clearly 
erroneous. There is substantial credible evidence supporting 

the valuations listed in the property distribution. 

The record reveals the District Court judgment to be 

sound in all respects. Affirmed. 

We Concur: ,, f'