Title: SCHULTZ v SCHULTZ
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 79-031
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 20, 1980

No. 79-31 IN THE SUPREMI3 COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 RICHARD SCHULTZ, Petitioner and Appellant, VS. CARLA JEAN SCHULTZ, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Regnier and Lewis, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Hash, Jellison, O'Brien and Bartlett, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on briefs: April 3, 1980 Decided: JUb! 2 0 1 - % @ Filed: JUN 2 0 1980 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway ~ a r r i s o n delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is t h e second appeal taken from a p e t i t i o n f o r a d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage and t h e e q u i t a b l e apportionment of a s s e t s of a m a r i t a l e s t a t e . The p e t i t i o n was o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d i n t h e District Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s - t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of Flathead, t h e Honorable Robert Sykes presiding. The f a c t s of t h e c a s e a r e f u l l y developed i n t h e first appeal, I n re Marriage of Schultz (1979), - Mont. , 597 P.2d 1174, 36 St.Rep. 1330, and need only be b r i e f l y discussed here. Appellant husband and respondent wife w e r e f i r s t married i n June 1967, divorced a year and a h a l f l a t e r , and remarried i n December 1969. A p e t i t i o n f o r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e second marriage w a s f i l e d on J u l y 28, 1977. A t t h a t time husband w a s 46 years o l d and employed a s a r a i l r o a d brakeman-conductor with n e t earnings of approxi- mately $1,350 p e r month. Wife was 37 years o l d and unem- ployed, b u t had worked during t h e marriage a s a bartender and waitress. The primary a s s e t of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e was a twenty-acre t r a c t of land, known as t h e H a s k i l l Creek property, located east of Whitefish, Montana, i n Flathead County. A small l o g house w a s located on t h e property which served as t h e m a r i t a l home of t h e p a r t i e s during t h e marriages. Husband o r i g i n a l l y purchased t h e land f o r $11,000 p r i o r t o h i s marriages t o wife, and approximately $5,000 of t h e purchase p r i c e was paid by husband during t h e marriages. O n March 23, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i s t r i b u t e d t h e marital e s t a t e . The personal property was divided equally between t h e p a r t i e s , and husband received t h e Haskill Creek property b u t was ordered t o pay wife $6,000 as her i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n . Husband w a s a l s o ordered t o assume a l l m a r i t a l o b l i g a t i o n s and w a s given c r e d i t f o r h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n s toward t h e support of w i f e ' s children. The following c h a r t i n d i c a t e s t h e c o u r t ' s apportionment: DESCRIPTION V A L U E TO H U S B A N D - -- TO WIFE (1) Real E s t a t e $40,000 $34,000 $ 6,000 ( 2 ) Less Contract Balance & Equity (6,000) (6,000) (3) Personal Property 7,170 3,585 ( 4 ) Less Debts (4,280) (4,280) (5) Less Child Sup- p o r t Contribu- t i o n s (20,000) (20,000) N E T Wife contested t h e above apportionment i n t h e f i r s t appeal on t h e b a s i s of i s s u e s unrelated t o those r a i s e d here. W e remanded t h e case t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o e n t e r c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s with r e s p e c t t o t h e personal property of t h e p a r t i e s and t o d i s t r i b u t e the m a r i t a l estate without considering husband's c o n t r i b u t i o n s toward t h e support of w i f e ' s children. Following our i n s t r u c t i o n s , the D i s t r i c t Court re-apportioned t h e m a r i t a l estate, t h i s t i m e d i v i d i n g t h e e s t a t e equally between t h e p a r t i e s with r e s p e c t t o both r e a l and personal property. Husband again w a s ordered t o assume a l l m a r i t a l o b l i g a t i o n s , and t h e property w a s divided i n t h e following manner: DESCRIPTION VALUE TO H U S B A N D - TO WIFE -- (1) Real E s t c t e $40,000 $25,190 $14,810 ( 2 ) L e s s Contract Balance & Equity (6,000) (6,000) (3) Personal Property 7,170 3,585 3, 585 ( 4 ) Less Debts (4,280) (4,280) NET $18,495 $18,395 A n objection t o t h i s second apportionment is now r a i s e d by husband i n t h e form of a second appeal. Husband argues t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r and abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by dividing t h e m a r i t a l estate equally between t h e p a r t i e s without considering t h e r e l a t i v e c o n t r i - butions of t h e p a r t i e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , husband o b j e c t s t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award t o wife of a g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e H a s k i l l Creek property simply by reason of her l i v i n g on t h e property during t h e marriage. I n considering husband's arguments, w e note, f i r s t of a l l , t h a t a D i s t r i c t Court has far-reaching d i s c r e t i o n i n resolving property d i v i s i o n d i s p u t e s i n d i s s o l u t i o n proceed- i n g s and t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court's judgment w i l l n o t be disturbed unless a clear abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i s demonstrated. Z e l l v. Zell (1977), 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33, 35; I n re Marriage of Aanenson (1979), - Mont. - , 598 P.2d 1120, 1123, 36 St.Rep. 1525, 1528; Cook v. Cook (1972), 159 Mont. 98, 103, 495 P.2d 591, 593-594; Schwartz v. Schwartz (1979), Mont. , 602 P.2d 175, 176; 36 St.Rep. 1980, 1981. - To p r e v a i l i n t h i s case, husband must show, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . The primary focus of husband's arguments concerns t h e D i s t r i c t Court's apportionment of t h e H a s k i l l Creek property, which w a s acquired by husband p r i o r t o h i s marriages t o wife. That property consisted of a twenty-acre tract of p a r t i a l l y c l e a r e d and p a r t i a l l y uncleared land. A t t h e t i m e of purchase, a small log house w a s located upon t h e property, and t h e r e was second growth timber of only marginal merchant- a b l e q u a l i t y . Husband and h i s f r i e n d s made s e v e r a l substan- t i a l improvements t o t h e house while t h e p a r t i e s l i v e d t h e r e during t h e marriages. I n disposing of property acquired p r i o r t o a marriage, a District Court i s required by s t a t u t e t o consider: ". . . those contributions of the o t h e r spouse t o t h e marriage, including: (a) the nonmonetary con- t r i b u t i o n of a homemaker; (b) t h e e x t e n t t o which such contributions have f a c i l i t a t e d the maintenance of t h i s property, and ( c ) whether o r n o t the prop- e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n serves as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o main- tenance arrangements." Section 40-4-202, MCA. Husband here r e f e r s t o c e r t a i n conclusions made by t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r h i s argument t h a t wife w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e property because of her lack of contributions. The D i s t r i c t Court concluded i n i t s conclu- sions of l a w t h a t wife made no s u b s t a n t i a l improvements t o t h e Haskill Creek property and t h a t she d i s s i p a t e d t h e marital estate. The c o u r t found, however, t h a t by reason of w i f e ' s i i v i n g on t h e property during t h e marriage and t h e period i n which improvements w e r e made, she was e n t i t l e d t o equal i n t e r e s t i n t h e property. I n understanding t h e conclusions and t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e District Court, it i s important t o consider t h e findings of f a c t entered by t h e court. These findings provide, i n p a r t , a b a s i s f o r t h e c o u r t ' s conclusions. Husband would have us believe, from a r a t h e r s e l e c t i v e examination of t h e c o u r t ' s conclusions, t h a t wife made no contributions t o t h e Haskill Creek property b u t simply l i v e d on it, and f u r t h e r t h a t wife was t h e s o l e cause and reason f o r the d i s s i p a t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l estate. The findings of f a c t i n d i c a t e otlier- w i s e . The c o u r t found f a c t u a l l y t h a t both p a r t i e s were responsible t o some e x t e n t f o r t h e d i s s i p a t i o n of t h e marital e s t a t e and t h a t wife made considerable s a c r i f i c e s while l i v i n g upon the property. Finding of Fact No. 1 9 s t a t e d : "Considerable s t r i f e , turmoil and controversy occurred throughout t h e two marriages of the p a r t i e s . Drinking -- on t h e p a r t of both p a r t i e s has contributed -- t o t h e problem. The respondent [wife] l e f t t h e family home on s e v e r a l occasions; and t h e separation of t h e p a r t i e s d i s s i p a t e d the a s s e t s and monies accumulated during t h e course of t h e marriage on t h e p a r t of both p a r t i e s . " (Emphasis added.) Finding of Fact No. 21 s t a t e d : "Substantial improvements w e r e made on t h e house during the marriages. The r e s u l t i n g l i v i n g con- d i t i o n s were a problem i n attempting t o maintain reasonable conditions. The respondent [wife] contributed l i t t l e physical e f f o r t i n improving t h e house; b u t both p a r t i e s n e i t h e r expected nor required such e f f o r t on her p a r t . The p a r t i e s l i v i n g on s a i d property, where s u b s t a n t i a l im- provements w e r e being made, required considerable s a c r i f i c e of personal comfort." W e f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n the record t o support such findings. Testimony w a s given a t t h e apportionment hearing regarding t h e p a r t i e s ' several c o n f l i c t s and t h e i r drinking problems. I t i s impossible t o conclude from such testimony t h a t t h e separation of the p a r t i e s and t h e subse- quent d i s s i p a t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e was caused e n t i r e l y by t h e a c t i o n s of one party. The t r a n s c r i p t a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t , while husband and h i s f r i e n d s engaged i n most of t h e physical work with regard t o the improvements made upon t h e property, wife nevertheless d i d such things a s buy bedroom l i g h t s , bathroom l i g h t s and a h o t water tank f o r t h e house, s t a i n doors and casings, clean up messes during the construc- t i o n , make t r i p s i n t o Whitefish f o r m a t e r i a l s , r i d e t h e C a t e r p i l l a r with husband i n working t h e property and d r i v e t h e truck during haying operations. With r e s p e c t t o t h e l i v i n g conditions t h a t both p a r t i e s l i v e d with during t h e construction, t h e r e i s testimony t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e were considerable s a c r i f i c e s made. An e n t i r e bedroom and bathroom w e r e added, and t h e r e w e r e no kitchen cupboards o r carpeting i n t h e house. One f r i e n d of husband's, who provided considerable help during t h e con- s t r u c t i o n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e condition of t h e property before t h e s t a r t of t h e work was " p r e t t y badw--"there wasn't any water, sewer, no l i v e a b l e conditions--it w a s r e a l l y rough." Because of these c o n t r i b u t i o n s and s a c r i - f i c e s , we f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t e r r o r abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding wife a g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t on t h e second apportionment. I n affirming t h e d i s c r e t i o n and d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s - trict Court, w e wish t o r e i t e r a t e t h a t , i n d i s s o l u t i o n proceedings, ea::h Jase must be considered by District Courts i n d i v i d u a l l y with an eye t o i t s unique circumstances. Cook v. Cook, 159 Mont. a t 104, 495 P.2d a t 59. There is no f i x e d formula o r r a t i o n a l e t o be applied i n each case, except t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n must be reasonable under t h e p a r t i c u l a r circumstances. Biegalke v. Biegalke (1977), 172 Mont. 311, 315, 564 P.2d 987, 989. H e r e , both p a r t i e s contributed t o t h e maintenance of t h e Haskill Creek property, and both w e r e responsible f o r t h e separation, which caused a d i s s i p a t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . Therefore, w e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , and t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: u / Q q 4 P"P 7 = 3 % % ' & X h i e f J u s t i c e