Title: MARRIAGE OF SCHULTZ
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-041
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 25, 1980

N o . 80-41 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1980 I N RE T H E MARRIAGE O F EADIE W. SCHULTZ, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, HILBERT SCHULTZ , Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: The District Court of t h e Tenth 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 o f Fergus, The Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: W i l l i a m E. Berger, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent : Leonard H. McKinney, Lewistown, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : June 19, 1980 Decided: JU6- 2 5 19&I F i l e d : Ill! ? 5 WQT? -. . M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment of t h e District Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Fergus, d i s s o l v i n g t h e marriage, s e t t l i n g custody and c h i l d support provisions and dividing t h e m a r i t a l property. The appeal p r i n c i p a l l y c e n t e r s around t h e d i v i - s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l property. Respondent wife i s a teacher and a coach a t Fergus County High School, where she has taught s i n c e t h e f a l l of 1977. Appellant husband i s a mechanic and maintenance man f o r t h e Montana S t a t e Highway Department where he has worked s i n c e January 1973. The p a r t i e s began t h e i r married l i f e without a s s e t s . Except f o r a s h o r t period of time when she was f i n i s h i n g her c o l l e g e education a t Eastern Montana College, wife has worked with husband i n h i s various occupations. Early i n t h e marriage t h e couple operated a s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n W i s - consin, and wife worked with husband i n t h e operation of t h i s s t a t i o n . A f t e r coming t o Montana, husband worked as a mechanic i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, while wife f i n i s h e d her education. Thereafter , they moved t o Lewistown, Montana, where wife became a teacher and a coach and husband con- tinued t o work i n t h e f i e l d of mechanics, p r i o r t o going t o work f o r t h e Highway Department. The p a r t i e s purchased a home when they moved t o Lewistown f o r which a downpayment was made from monies husband had obtained from h i s family. The p a r t i e s sold t h e house i n Lewistown and used t h e proceeds of t h e sale t o purchase t e n and one-half a c r e s o u t s i d e of town where they e r e c t e d a Capp home. The Capp home c o s t $25,000 and was p u t i n place over a basement t h a t had been dug and poured. The house w a s a s h e l l of a house when it was p u t up i n 1975. Since t h a t time t h e family has c o n t i n u a l l y worked on t h e house t o f i n i s h it and make it t o t a l l y l i v a b l e . This has taken some t h r e e years of work by husband, wife and t h e i r two boys, and t h e f a m i l y ' s income has gone i n t o t h e purchase of m a t e r i a l s , e t c . , t o complete t h i s house. The property and house are t h e p r i n c i p a l a s s e t s of t h e family and a r e t h e c e n t e r of t h i s d i s p u t e because t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s order and judgment d i r e c t e d t h a t respondent wife g e t t h i s property. Respondent t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e value of t h e property and p u t t h e value a t $80,000. Husband valued t h e property a t between $85,000 and $100,000, and a s e p a r a t e a p p r a i s a l w a s made by an FHA a p p r a i s e r who set a value of $85,000. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s o w n e d a l o t i n Wisconsin on a l a k e which was r e c r e a t i o n a l property. The value of t h i s property i s estimated between $10,000 and $15,000. There was a t t h e time of t h e decree of d i s s o l u t i o n a $24,508 mortgage a g a i n s t t h e house and t e n acres. The rest of t h e property l i s t e d and divided by t h e c o u r t was personal property including automobiles, horses, farm equipment, and t o o l s , and those t h i n g s t h a t a r e necessary around t h e house, including a c o l l e c t i o n of guns estimated a t a value of approximately $2,500. According t o t h e n e t d i s t r i b u t i o n , respondent wife received approximately 7 3 t o 79 percent of t h e n e t worth of t h e couple, and husband received 21 t o 27 percent. Appel- l a n t husband argues on appeal t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s t o t a l l y inequitable. The i s s u e before us i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t complied with t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, i n making t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of property of the marriage i n an e q u i t a b l e manner, o r whether t h e c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n making t h e property d i v i s i o n . This Court has, s i n c e 1975 when t h e Marriage and Divorce Act was passed, considered many cases with regard t o proper property d i v i s i o n i n d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage cases. W e have adopted c e r t a i n g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n a s mandated under s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. Several c r i t e r i a stand o u t a s mandates, f i r s t of which i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court make f i n d i n g s of f a c t from which t h e r e can be e s t a b l i s h e d a n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s . See I n re Marriage of Schultz (1979), Mont. - , 597 P.2d 1174, 36 St.Rep. 1330; Herring v. Herring (1979), - Mont. , 602 P.2d 1006, 36 St.Rep. 2052; Vivian v. Vivian (1978) - Mont. - , 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359; Downs v. Downs (1979), - Mont. - , 592 P.2d 938, 36 St.Rep. 577; I n re Marriage of Capener (1978), 177 Mont. 437, 582 P.2d 326, 35 St.Rep. 1026; Kruse v. Kruse (1978), Mont. , 586 P.2d 294, 35 St.Rep. 1502; I n re Marriage of Brown - (1978) - Mont. , 587 P.2d 361, 35 St.Rep. 1733; Robertson v. Robertson (1978), - Mont. - , 590 P.2d 113, 35 St-Rep. 1889; Grenfell v. Grenfell (1979) I - Mont. , 596 P.2d 205, 36 St.Rep. 1100; I n r e ~ a r r i a g e of Herron (1980), - Mont. - , 608 P.2d 97, 37 St.Rep. 387. The above cases generally hold t h a t t h e r e must be complete findings as t o t h e assets and l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r values f o r establishment of a n e t worth. This Court has allowed a f a i l u r e t o f i n d a n e t worth t o stand only where t h e r e has been a 50/50 s p l i t of t h e property. See Bailey v. Bailey (1979), Mont. 603 P.2d 259, 36 St.Rep. 2162; Reese v. Reese (1979), - Mont. , 604 P.2d 326, 36 St.Rep. 2389; Kuntz v. Kuntz (1979), - Mont. , 593 P.2d 41, 36 St.Rep. 662. H e r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o make f i n d i n g s estab- l i s h i n g t h e n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s p r i o r t o dividing t h e marital property and dividing it i n an i n e q u i t a b l e manner without regard t o t h e husband's c o n t r i b u t i o n s and i n h e r i - tance n e c e s s i t a t e s a r e v e r s a l . W e remand with d i r e c t i o n s t o a s c e r t a i n t h e n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s i n a r r i v i n g a t a proper d i v i s i o n of t h e same. W e concur: i e f J u s t i k e