Title: MARRIAGE OF KUNTZ
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14257
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 9, 1979

No. 14257 I N THE SUPREME C O W O F THE STATE O F I4XCANA 1979 IN RE TI-E MAFUUAGE O F NANCY E. K U W Z , Petitioner and Respondent, -VS- THOMAS M . K W Z , Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Hon. H. William Coder, J d g e presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Ralph T. Randono, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Great Falls, Mntana Sdmitted on briefs: March 12, 1979 Decided: Ai , , i 1 19-9 - Filed : .-: M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. c his i s an appeal from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Cascade, i n which t h e c o u r t granted respondent Nancy Kuntz a d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage and ordered c e r t a i n custody and property disposi- t i o n s . The t r i a l c o u r t ordered t h a t t h e land and home, which w e r e valued a t $59,850, be sold and a f t e r a l l debts connected with it paid, t h e proceeds equally divided. I n addition, t h e machinery and livestock w e r e ordered sold. The remain- ing j o i n t debts of t h e p a r t i e s were t o be paid from t h e proceeds and t h e remainder divided equally. Each p a r t y was awarded t h e v e h i c l e they w e r e using a t t h e time of separation. P r i o r t o discussing t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by appellant, w e note t h a t t h e counsel f o r appellant herein was not t h e counsel t h a t t r i e d t h i s matter before t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Therefore, some of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal w e r e matters t h a t , had he been present a t the t i m e of t h e t r i a l , would have been handled d i f f e r e n t l y . Nevertheless, he takes t h e record a s he f i n d s it. The i s s u e s presented f o r our review a r e : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n making t h e d i v i s i o n of property between t h e p a r t i e s ordered i n i t s decree of October 17, 1977? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court make t h e required findings of f a c t necessary t o support t h e decree? 3 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court make t h e required conclu- sions of l a w necessary t o support t h e decree? 4 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n excluding t h e evi- dence of Howard Parker a s t o value? 5.  id t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n i t s r u l i n g s upon examination of Bruce A. Nelson ( a ) a s t o t h e exclusion of testimony a s t o o t h e r s a l e s and (b) a s t o accepting t h e opinion of t h e witness? For t h e purpose of t h i s opinion w e d i v i d e t h e i s s u e s i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s , combining i s s u e s one through t h r e e on whether o r n o t t h e c o u r t followed t h e s t a t u t e s a s required i n considering t h e p a r t i e s t a s s e t s f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n and i s s u e s f o u r and f i v e a s t o whether t h e testimony concerning property v a l u a t i o n w a s properly received. Appellant takes i s s u e with t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y f i n d a c e r t a i n value a s t o property, both personal and r e a l , and be more s p e c i f i c i n i t s findings. H e a l l e g e s t h a t s e c t i o n 40-4-202 MCA r e q u i r e s such f i n d i n g s by t h e c o u r t i n t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e property. Here, t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h e value of t h e house and land w a s $59,850 and t h a t t h e r e w a s a $15,000 mortgage outstanding. The c o u r t then ordered t h e property s o l d and t h e proceeds divided equally a f t e r t h e indebtedness w a s paid. While t h e c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y p l a c e a value on t h e few c a t t l e o r t h e small amount of machinery t h a t was on t h e farm, it d i d i n s t e a d order t h a t it be s o l d with t h e farm and ordered those proceeds divided equally a l s o . I n our opinion t h i s was a workable method i n dividing t h e only a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s a s both p a r t i e s had contributed towards t h e i r preservation. The c o u r t ' s order i s l o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l , and i n our opinion follows t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 40-4- 202 MCA and case law. A review of t h e c a s e law upholds t h e f i n d i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n t h i s regard. See I n re Marriage of Caprice (1978) Mont . , 585 P.2d 641, 35 St.Rep. 1460, and Marriage of Barron (1978), Mont . , 580 P.2d 936, 35 St.Rep. 891. Appellant relies on s e v e r a l c a s e s of t h i s Court which he b e l i e v e s a r e c o n t r o l l i n g : Robertson v. Robertson (1978), Mont. , 590 P.2d 113, 35 St.Rep. 1889; I n re Mar- r i a g e of Capener (1978), Mont. , 582 P.2d 326, 35 St.Rep. 1026; Vivian v. Vivian (1978), Mont . , 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St-Rep. 1359; I n re Marriage of K r a m e r (1978), Mont . , 580 P.2d 439, 35 St.Rep. 700; and Martinez v. Martinez (1978), Mont. I 573 P.2d 667, 35 St.Rep. 61. These c a s e s a r e n o t a t p o i n t i n t h i s m a t t e r f o r they e i t h e r had no f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s o r record upon which r e q u i r e d a determination of n e t worth t o s u p p o r t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r cases t o one of t h e p a r t i e s . P u t t i n g a n e t d o l l a r f i g u r e on t h e bottom l i n e would n o t a f f e c t t h e judgment i n t h i s c a s e f o r t h e sale would e s t a b l i s h what t h e f i g u r e should be. H e r e , what t h e D i s - t r i c t Court says i n i t s o r d e r is: Here are t h e a s s e t s , s e l l them, pay your j o i n t d e b t s , and s p l i t what remains. I t i s a simple, p r a c t i c a l and l o g i c a l way f o r t h e District Court t o d i v i d e t h e a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s d i s - s o l v i n g t h e i r marriage. The duty of t h e c o u r t w a s t o con- s i d e r t h e s t a t u t o r y f a c t o r s and e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e prop- e r t y . W e f i n d t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d so. I n a d d i t i o n , a p p e l l a n t argues t h a t t h e f a c t s do n o t support t h e f i n d i n g s . The standard f o r reviewing t h a t claim i s c l e a r l y set f o r t h i n I n re Marriage of Jorgensen (1979), Mont. , 590 P.2d 606, 36 St-Rep. 233, where w e s a i d t h a t f i n d i n g s may n o t be d i s t u r b e d by u s u n l e s s c l e a r l y erroneous (Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.). The evidence h e r e s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s . The r u l e i n Montana f o r o u r review of p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i n m a r i t a l c a s e s i s whether t h e D i s - t r i c t Court a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y , without employment of con- s c i e n t i o u s judgment, o r exceeded t h e bounds of reason i n view of a l l t h e circumstances. Zell v. Zell (1977), Mont. . 570 P.2d 33, 34 St.Rep. 1070. Appellant has not shown a r b i t r a r i n e s s on t h e p a r t of t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t goes beyond conscientious judgment o r beyond reason. W e next consider whether t h e c o u r t properly admitted t h e expert testimony of Bruce Nelson, a r e a l t o r , concerning t h e value of t h e acreage and t h e buildings on same, and then r e s t r i c t e d cross-examination on t h e s a l e s of other property i n t h e area. Appellant c l a i m s t h i s case must be reversed because M r . Nelson was allowed t o t e s t i f y about t h e value of t h e r e a l e s t a t e . He a l s o claims h i s attorney should have been allowed t o cross-examine M r . Nelson about other s a l e s . M r . Nelson w a s allowed t o t e s t i f y as an expert about h i s opinion of t h e r e a l e s t a t e value. Rule 702, Mont.R.Evid., reads: " I f s c i e n t i f i c , technical, o r other specialized knowledge w i l l assist t h e t r i e r of f a c t t o under- stand t h e evidence o r determine a f a c t i n i s s u e , a witness q u a l i f i e d a s an expert by knowledge, s k i l l , experience, t r a i n i n g , o r education, may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e form of opinion o r other- wise." (Emphasis supplied.) The c o u r t must decide whether t h e expert i s q u a l i f i e d . Rule 104, Mont.R.Evid. M r . Nelson's q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a r e found i n t h e record: he i s a licensed r e a l e s t a t e broker; has been s o s i n c e 1952; belongs t o professional organizations; and has made h i s l i v i n g s i n c e 1952 s e l l i n g real e s t a t e state-wide. He has s o l d numerous farm p r o p e r t i e s , i s f a m i l i a r with t h e values of property i n t h e area, and had inspected t h e property i n question. The c o u r t allowed h i s opinion a s t o the value. W e f i n d no e r r o r . The D i s t r i c t Court considered a l l necessary f a c t o r s and made r u l i n g s considered e q u i t a b l e under t h e circumstances. W e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h a t c o u r t . /' 1 J u s t i c e / W e concur: % , c e , a w & 4 m i e f J u s t i c e