Title: BECKER v BECKER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85-213
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 1985

No. 85-213 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 EDWARD F. BECKER, JR., Petitioner and Appellant, -vs- SANDRA L. BECKER, Respondent and Xespondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: James J. Sinclair, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Wright, Tolliver & Guthals; Kenneth D. Tolliver, Billings, Montana Submitted: July 12, 1985 Decided: October 8, 1985 Filed: o C r 8 1 9 8 5 M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Edward F. Becker, Jr., p e t i t i o n e d f o r , and was g r a n t e d , a d i s s o l u t i o n o f marriage and now a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o p e r t y ordered by t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court. The i s s u e on appeal i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of property. W e a f f i r m . The husband sets f o r t h two s p e c i f i c i s s u e s : (1) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by i n c l u d i n g i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e t h e husband's s t o c k i n one c o r p o r a t i o n while excluding t h e w i f e ' s s t o c k i n a d i f f e r e n t corpora t i o n ? (2) Did t h e District Court err by f a i l i n g t o set f o r t h t h e v a l u e o f t h e w i f e ' s c o r p o r a t e stock? Although n o t s t a t e d a s an i s s u e on a p p e a l , t h e husband a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n c o r r e c t l y valued h i s c o r p o r a t e stock. Ed Becker, Jr., a p p e l l a n t , married t h e respondent, Sandy Becker, i n May 1974. They have one c h i l d . Appellant p r e v i o u s l y worked f o r h i s f a t h e r a t Recker's Glass Shop, Inc. (Becker, Inc.) , and earned a n e t monthly income o f $1,717. Appellant was t h e v i c e - p r e s i d e n t and t h e shop foreman of Becker, Inc. H i s f a t h e r f i r e d him a s a r e s u l t of t h e f i l i n g o f t h i s d i v o r c e a c t i o n . H e had worked f o r h i s f a t h e r f o r fourteen y e a r s . P r i o r t o h i s marriage, a p p e l l a n t had received 1,000 s h a r e s o f Becker, Inc., from h i s f a t h e r . A f t e r h i s marriage, he received 21,000 s h a r e s o f Becker, I n c . , from h i s f a t h e r . Appellant was employed by Becker, Inc., a t t h e v a r i o u s t i m e s he received t h e s e s h a r e s . H e owns 42-43% o f t h e s t o c k of Becker, Inc. A p p e l l a n t ' s b r o t h e r , J i m , a c q u i r e d s t o c k j.n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n w h i l e h e was employed t h e r e . A p p a r e n t l y , J i m d i d n o t a c q u i r e any s t o c k a f t e r l e a v i n g t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , a p p e l l a n t worked i n t h e g l a s s b u s i n e s s f o r h i s b r o t h e r and earned a n e t monthly income o f $1,627. H i s job i s s e a s o n a l . H e h a s a b a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e i n b u s i n e s s from E a s t e r n Montana College. Respondent i s employed a s a l e g a l s e c r e t a r y and e a r n s a n e t monthly income o f a b o u t $1,300. She does n o t have a c o l l e g e d e g r e e . During t h e m a r r i a g e , s h e was g i v e n s h a r e s o f s t o c k i n h e r p a r e n t s ' farm ( t h e M i l l Creek Farm) a s p a r t o f h e r p a r e n t s ' e s t a t e p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s . Respondent t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t o c k h a s a t o t a l v a l u e o f $32,725. Respondent, i n a d d i t i o n t o h e r s e c r e t a r i a l job, t o o k c a r e o f t h e house, t h e cooking and t h e c l e a n i n g d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . I n February 1984, a p p e l l a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e . A non-jury t r i a l was h e l d i n t h e c a s e i n October 1984. The D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law i n December 1984. N e i t h e r p a r t y o b j e c t s t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e , t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t award, o r t h e c h i l d custody d e c i s i o n . A p p e l l a n t ' s o n l y complaint i s t o t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t 21,000 s h a r e s o f a p p e l l a n t ' s s t o c k i n Becker, I n c . , w e r e a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e and w h i l e h e worked f o r t h e company. The c o u r t concluded t h a t t h o s e s h a r e s w e r e t h p p r o d u c t of t h e m a r i t a l e f f o r t and should t h e r e f o r e b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . The c o u r t valued t h o s e 21,000 s h a r e s o f s t o c k a t $37,841.87. The c o u r t d i d n o t i n c l u d e i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e t h a t s t o c k given t o a p p e l l a n t p r i o r t o t h e marriage. The c o u r t based t h i s v a l u a t i o n on a f i n a n c i a l s t a t e m e n t o f Eecker, I n c . , which had been supplied by t h e company's c e r t i f i e d p u b l i c accountant. The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s stock i n t h e M i l l Creek Farm had been given t o h e r a s a g i f t and was n o t earned by h e r . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t a p p e l l a n t and respondent had n o t enhanced o r maintained t h e M i l l Creek Farm o r r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e farm. Therefore, t h e c o u r t d i d n o t i n c l u d e r e s p o n d e n t ' s stock i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e t o be divided among t h e p a r t i e s . The c o u r t d i d n o t a s s i g n a v a l u e t o t h i s stock i n i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of law. The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions o f law a r e otherwise d e t a i l e d and complete. The m a r i t a l e s t a t e was valued a t $159,144.27. Of t h i s , respondent was awarded $74,097.40. She a l s o received a l l o f t h e Mil.1 Creek Farm s t o c k , which h e r uncontroverted testimony valued a t $32,725 ( f o r a t o t a l award o f $106,822.40). Appellant received $85,516.87 from t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . H e contends t h a t t h e Becker, I n c . , s t o c k , which r e p r e s e n t s $37,841.87 o f h i s t o t a l award, is a c t u a l l y v a l u e l e s s . A s t h e f i r s t i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by i n c l u d i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s s t o c k i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e while excluding respondent's stock. The standard o f review is c l e a r . In d i v i d i n g p r o p e r t y i n a marriage d i s s o l u t i o n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s f a r reaching d i s c r e t i o n and i t s judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d without a showing o f c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . The test o f abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y without employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment o r exceeded t h e bounds of reason r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e . I n R e t h e M a r r i a g e o f R o l f e (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , 699 P.2d 79, 8 3 , 42 St.Rep. 623, 626; c i t i n g I n re M a r r i a g e o f V e r t (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 680 P.2d 587, 41 St.Rep. 895. A p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t i s s u e e s s e n t i a l l y r a i s e s two q u e s t i 0 n . s ; (1) w h e t h e r r e s p o n d e n t ' s s t o c k s h o u l d h a v e Seen i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ; and ( 2 ) w h e t h e r a p p e l l a n t ' s s t o c k s h o u l d have been i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . A s t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d , t h e s e a r e two d i s t i n c t i n q u i r i e s . S e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, s t a t e s i n p a r t : . . . I n d i v i d i n g p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d . . . by g i f t . . . t h e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r t h o s e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e o t h e r s p o u s e t o t h e m a r r i a g e , i n c l u d i n g : ( a ) t h e nonmonetary c o n t r i b u t i o n o f a homemaker; ( b ) t h e e x t e n t t o which s u c h c o n t r i b u t i o n s h a v e f a c i l i t a t e d t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h i s p r o p e r t y . . . T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e , i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o i n c l u d e q i f t p r o p e r t y g i v e n t o o n e s p o u s e d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . S n e l l r . S n e l l (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 668 P.2d 238, 40 St.Rep. 1359; I n re t h e M a r r i a g e o f J o r g e n s o n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 294, 590 P.2d 606. I n re t h e o f Herron ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 186 Mont. 396, 608 P.2d 97, set f o r t h b r o a d g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f g i f t o r b e q u e s t p r o p e r t y . One s u c h g u i d e l i n e i s t h a t : [ i ] f none o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y i s a p r o d u c t o f c o n t r i b u t i o n from t h e m a r i t a l e f f o r t . [ s i c ] t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t can j u s t i f i a b l y f i n d t h a t t h e n o n - a c q u i r i n g s p o u s e h a s no i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y . Herron, 186 Mont. a t 404. H e r e , r e s p o n d e n t r e c e i v e d h e r s t o c k i n M i l l Creek Farm a s a g i f t u n d e r h e r p a r e n t s ' e s t a t e p l a n n i n g scheme. Moreover, n e i t h e r p a r t y worked o n t h e farm e x c e p t f o r i s o l a t e d odd jobs. A t t r i a l , a p p e l l a n t r e p l i e d " a b s o l u t e l y n o t " when asked i f he f e l t he had made a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e farm o p e r a t i o n . H e a l s o agreed with c o u n s e l ' s remark t h a t a p p e l l a n t made no claim t o any i n t e r e s t i n t h e family farm. Under Herron, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t could j u s t i f i a b l y f i n d t h a t a p p e l l a n t had no i n t e r e s t i n respondent's stock. See a l s o S n e l l , 668 P.2d 238; Jorgenson, 590 P.2d 606. W e hold t h a t t h e r e was no abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n i n excluding respondent's stock from t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . In c o n t r a s t t o respondent's a c q u i s i t i o n o f s t o c k , a p p e l l a n t acquired h i s s t o c k i n Becker, Inc., when he was working f o r t h e company. S i m i l a r l y , t h e r e i s evidence t h a t h i s b r o t h e r acquired h i s s t o c k i n Becker, Inc.*when he worked for t h e company. H i s sister d i d n o t receive any s t o c k i n t h e company. These f a c t s support a conclusion t h a t a p p e l l a n t received t h e stock a s compensation f o r working and n o t a s a g i f t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t , by working, enhanced and maintained t h e v a l u e o f t h e stock. F i n a l l y , respondent took c a r e o f t h e f a m i l y ' s cooking, c l e a n i n g and laundering while a p p e l l a n t was working f o r Becker, Inc. Under t h e s e f a c t s , it was n o t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o f i n d t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s s t o c k was a product o f t h e m a r i t a l e f f o r t and should, t h e r e f o r e , be included i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . Appellant f u r t h e r complains t h a t t h e lower c o u r t e r r e d i n a s s i g n i n g v a l u e t o a p p e l l a n t ' s s h a r e s o f stock. Appellant argues t h a t h i s s t o c k i s v a l u e l e s s because: (1) t h e c o r p o r a t i o n l e a s e s i t s b u i l d i n g and land from a p p e l l a n t ' s f a t h e r ; (2) a p p e l l a n t ' s f a t h e r can l i q u i d a t e t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a t w i l l ; and (3) a p p e l l a n t h a s no c o n t r o l over t h e c o r p o r a t i o n and cannot even work f o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . However, a t t r i a l , a p p e l l a n t admitted t h a t he thought t h e s t o c k was w o r t h something, t h a t R e c k e r , I n c . , h a s a good name and t h a t t h e company h a s been t h e r e f o r a number o f y e a r s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n v a l u i n g t h e s t o c k , r e l i e d upon f i g u r e s s u p p l i e d b y Becker, I n c . ' s , a c c o u n t a n t , F.obert A. E v e r s o n , CPA. The c o u r t computed t h e s t o c k ' s v a l u e by d i v i d i n g t h e v a l u e o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s t o t a l a s s e t s , less l i a b i l i t i e s , b y t h e number o f o u t s t a n d i n g s h a r e s . T h i s C o u r t h a s e x p r e s s l y approved t h i s method o f v a l u i n g s t o c k . R u r l e i g h v. B u r l e i g h (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 650 P.2d 753, 39 St.Rep. 1538. W e uphold t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s v a l u a t i o n . F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e l o w e r c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t making a f i n d i n g as t o t h e v a l u e o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s s h a r e s o f s t o c k . T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t w o r t h o f t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e . I n re t h e M a r r i a g e o f L o e g e r i n g (Mont. 1984) , 689 P.2d 260, 41 St.Rep. 1892; Beck v. Beck (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 661 P.2d 1282, 40 St.Rep. 565. T h a t s t a t e m e n t , however, h a s n o t been a r u l e s t r i c t l y a d h e r e d t o b y t h i s C o u r t . W e have a l s o s t a t e d t h a t : F a i l u r e t o p r e c i s e l y set f o r t h n e t w o r t h o f p a r t i e s d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n so l o n g a s t h e f i n d i n g s a s a whole a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o d e t e r m i n e n e t w o r t h , I n R e M a r r i a g e o f Nunnally (1981) , Mont., 625 P.2d 1159, 38 St.Rep. 529, and t h e f i n d i n g s t h e m s e l v e s w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y mandates c o n t r a r y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . Cameron v . Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 219, 587 P.2d 939. Le Prowse v. LeProwse ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 198 Mont. 357, 646 P.2d 526. I n t h i s c a s e , it was n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o n o t a s s i g n a v a l u e t o a n a s s e t n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . H e r e , a l t h o u g h t h e c o u r t d i d n o t a s s i g n a v a l u e t o t h e s t o c k , t h e c o u r t c l e a r l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e w i f e ' s s t o c k and awarded it t o h e r . T h e r e was no d i s p u t e as t o t h e s t o c k ' s value. Respondent c o n s i s t e n t l y admitted t h e stock was worth $32,725. Appellant does n o t a t t a c k t h i s v a l u a t i o n . Thus, a s i n LeProwse and Nunnally, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a s a whole a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o determine n e t worth. The f i n d i n g s were otherwise complete and e q u i t a b l e . W e hold t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t commit an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f property. The omission o f a v a l u a t i o n f o r respondent's stock was, a t most, harmless e r r o r . What t h i s Court s t a t e d i n I n R e t h e Marriage o f Z i e g l e r (Mont. 1985), 696 P.2d 983, 987, 42 St.Rep. 298, 302, b e a r s r e p e a t i n g : W e do n o t wish t o r e s t r i c t t h e l i b e r a l , d i s c r e t i o n a r y power vested i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s , by r e q u i r i n g r i g i d adherence t o t e c h n i c a l forms o f p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o r d e r s . T h i s Court recognizes t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t must evidence t h e b a s i s o f i t s u l t i m a t e conclusion i n t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t . However, t h e s t a t u t o r y g u i d e l i n e s promulgated i n 40-4-202, MCA, w e r e n o t designed a s r e q u i s i t e c r i t e r i a t o be i n d i v i d u a l l y itemized i n every p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n decree. Affirmed . , , , " - , ' - I J u s t i c e ' W e concur: J u s t i c e s