Case Name: In re the MARRIAGE OF LAURIE NORINE, Petitioner and Respondent, and GARY A. NORINE, Respondent and Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1984-06-05
Citations: 210 Mont. 477
Docket Number: No. 84-96
Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF LAURIE NORINE, Petitioner and Respondent, and GARY A. NORINE, Respondent and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 477–478

Head Matter:
In re the MARRIAGE OF LAURIE NORINE, Petitioner and Respondent, and GARY A. NORINE, Respondent and Appellant.
No. 84-96.
June 5, 1984.
681 P.2d 1096.
McKinley Anderson, Bozeman, for petitioner and respondent.
Drysdale, McLean, Serenar & DiRe, Bozeman, for respondent and appellant.

Opinion:
ORDER AND OPINION
PER CURIUM:
The husband appeals a division of marital property made by the Gallatin County District Court whereby his former wife received their house.
The parties were married in 1973 and divorced in 1983. The trial court noted in its findings that the value of the personal property acquired during marriage and in the possession of the husband totaled $16,620. The wife's personal property totaled $2,855. The parties' residence and real estate was valued at $51,500, against which there was a mortgage unpaid of $28,677.63 and an equity paid of $22,822.37.
The court awarded the husband his personal property (16,620) and the wife hers ($2,855). The house was awarded to the wife (net value $22,822.37.).
We have been asked to decide whether the District Court failed to make a determination of the net worth of the parties at the time of dissolution. Given the findings and our holding in In re Marriage of Bosacker (Mont. 1980) 609 P.2d 253, 37 St. Rep. 469, appellant's argument is without merit.
Appellant also argues that the distribution of property was inequitable. This Court will not alter a District Court judgment resolving property division unless the lower acted "arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment" or exceeded "the bounds of reason in view of all the circumstances." Stratford v. Stratford (Mont. 1981), 631 P.2d 296, 298, 38 St. Rep. 1093, 1095. The record discloses no such abuse of discretion.
The appeal is without merit and is denied summarily.
DATED this 5th day of May, 1984.