Title: LASTER v LASTER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-376
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 14, 1982

No. 81-376 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RODNEY LASTER, Petitioner and Appellant, and JUNE M. LASTER, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Boscher and Boschert, Billings, Montana Alan J. Lerner argued, Big Fork, Montana For Respondent: Berger, Sinclair and Nelson, Billings, Montana James J. Sinclair argued, Billings, Montana APR 1 5 I $ ! ? ! Filed: Submitted: January 13, 1982 Decided : i a r a $ 5 1992 - $ )&J',l- / Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . The husband, Rodney L a s t e r , a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Y e l l o w s t o n e County, i n which t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e was d i s s o l v e d , t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e d i v i d e d , and t h e w i f e awarded $350 p e r month i n m a i n t e n a n c e , a s w e l l a s a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . The L a s t e r s were m a r r i e d f o r twenty-nine y e a r s . They had t h r e e c h i l d r e n , two a r e now a d u l t s . The t h i r d c h i l d was s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d , b o t h p h y s i c a l l y and m e n t a l l y , r e q u i r i n g t o t a l c a r e . The w i f e q u i t h e r s e c r e t a r i a l j o b i n 1956 t o c a r e f o r h e r d i s a b l e d c h i l d , who l i v e d t o t h e age o f t e n . The husband and w i f e s e p a r a t e d i n A p r i l 1979. The husband moved t o Montana i n December 1979 w h i l e t h e w i f e s t a y e d i n P e n n s y l v a n i a . A f t e r t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n t h e w i f e o b t a i n e d a j o b a s a f l o o r l a d y i n a garment shop. She is now f i f t y - e i g h t y e a r s o l d , and h e r g r o s s s a l a r y is $406.20 e v e r y two w e e k s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e w i f e ' s n e t s a l a r y is $308 e v e r y o t h e r week. I n a r r i v i n g a t t h i s f i g u r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b t r a c t e d from t h e g r o s s s a l a r y a l l o f t h e i t e m i z e d d e d u c t i o n s ( f e d e r a l , s t a t e and l o c a l t a x e s , s o c i a l s e c u r i t y and union d u e s ) t a k e n o u t o f t h e w i f e ' s b i - weekly pay check. By m u l t i p l y i n g $388 times t w e n t y - s i x pay p e r i o d s , and d i v i d i n g by t w e l v e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e ' s a v e r a g e monthly s p e n d a b l e incorne is $667. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e ' s monthly e x p e n s e s t o t a l $806. To supplement h e r income, t h e w i f e h a s r e n t e d a mobile home owned by t h e p a r t i e s f o r $165 p e r month. The w i f e is n o t e l i g i b l e f o r f u l l r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s s i n c e s h e began h e r j o b a f t e r t h e a g e o f f i f t y - f i v e . She w i l l r e c e i v e a s m a l l p e n s i o n o f $33.60 p e r month i f s h e works u n t i l s h e is s i x t y - s e v e n . The husband is f i f t y - o n e y e a r s o l d . H e h a s n ~ u l t i p l e s c l e r o s i s b u t i t is i n r e m i s s i o n and t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d t h a t it i m p a i r s h i s a b i l i t y t o work. The husband p r e s e n t l y works f o r t h e f e d e r a l government a s a n OSHA com- p l i a n c e o f f i c e r i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. The h u s b a n d ' s g r o s s income was $27,854 i n 1981, $25,608 i n 1980. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t i n 1980 t h e h u s b a n d ' s s p e n d a b l e income was $ 1 , 8 6 5 p e r month. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a r r i v e d a t t h i s f i g u r e by d e d u c t i n g o n l y t h e f e d e r a l t a x e s from t h e h u s b a n d ' s g r o s s income and d i v i d i n g by t w e l v e . U n l i k e its d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e w i f e ' s m o n t h l y s p e n d a b l e income, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t l o o k t o t h e m o n t h l y d e d u c t i o n s t a k e n o u t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s paycheck. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o f o u n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s f i a n c e e c o n t r i b u t e s $100 p e r week and t h i s a d d i t i o n a l income would s e r v e t o o f f s e t f u t u r e l i v i n g e x p e n s e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o s u p p o r t i n g h i m s e l f , t h e husband sup- p o r t s h i s f i a n c e e and h i s f i a n c e e ' s d a u g h t e r . H i s m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s were found t o be $1,535 p e r month. Taking t h e $ 1 , 8 6 5 s p e n d a b l e i n c o m e a n d s u b t r a c t i n g t h e $ 1 , 5 3 5 i n e x p e n s e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e husband was a b l e t o pay o v e r $300 i n m a i n t e n a n c e t o t h e w i f e . The husband h a s t h r e e r e t i r e m e n t programs, two v e s t e d but n o t m a t u r e d and one n o t v e s t e d . A l l o f t h e payments o f t h e f i r s t two p l a n s were made d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e . Under t h e f i r s t p l a n , t h e husband w i l l r e c e i v e $750 p e r inonth when he r e a c h e s t h e age of s i x t y . Under t h e second p l a n , t h e husband w i l l r e c e i v e $304 per month when he r e a c h e s t h e age of f i f t y - n i n e . The husband is p r e s e n t l y c o n t r i b u t i n g t o a t h i r d plan which w i l l v e s t i n approxi- mately f i v e y e a r s . E x c l u d i n g t h e v a l u e of t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court valued t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s a t $73,580, l i a b i l i t i e s a t $18,359.27, and n e t m a r i t a l e s t a t e a t $55,220.73. The major d i s p u t e d v a l u a t i o n s a r e t h e f a m i l y home i n Pennsylvania and t h e jewelry a c q u i r e d during t h e marriage. Evidence of t h e s e v a l u a t i o n s was i n d e f i n i t e s i n c e a p p r a i s a l f i g u r e s were based mostly on t h e p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s , formed through informal i n q u i r i e s o r r e l i - ance on amounts of i n s u r a n c e coverage. Except f o r t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y with approximately 78% t o t h e wife and 22% t o t h e husband. The D i s t r i c t Court l i s t e d i t s r e a s o n s f o r such a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n stat:.ng t h a t f o r t h e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s t h e wife h a s been s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e mortgage payments on t h e f a m i l y home and ten-acre t r a c t . T h i s , coupled with t h e l e n g t h of t h e mar- r i d g e , t h e d e v o t i o n of t h e wife t o t h e c a r e of h e r d i s a b l e d c h i l d , t h e w i f e ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o undertake employment a t t h e age of f i f t y - s i x y e a r s and t h e d i s p a r i t y of e a r n i n g capa- b i l i t i e s , j u s t i f i e d t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n . To e q u a l i z e t h i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court awarded t h e wife a one-third s h a r e i n each of t h e husband's r e t i r e - inent p l a n s r a t h e r t h a n t h e one-half s h a r e she requested. A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d , i n t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y awarded t o t h e wife was n o t income produciny but incoiae r e d u c i n g , t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court found t h e r e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t p r o p e r t y i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e t o provide f o r t h e redsonable needs of t h e wife. The D i s t r i c t Court f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e husband was f i n a n - c i a l l y a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e $350 per month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e wife and awarded her t h a t amount u n t i l her d e a t h , u n t i l s h e remarries, o r u n t i l t h e husband r e t i r e s . The D i s t r i c t Court f u r t h e r awarded t h e w i f e $541 f o r h e r expenses of t r a v e l i n g t o Montana and s t a y i n g h e r e d u r i n g t h e t r i a l . F i n a l l y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t h e w i f e d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t funds t o pay a t t o r n e y f e e s and ordered t h e husband t o pay $1,050 i n r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s . Four b a s i c i s s u e s have been p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n its e q u i t a b l e apportionment of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n awarding maintenance t o t h e wife? 3 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n awarding t h e wife a p o r t i o n of t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s ? 4. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s t o t h e wife? The husband r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e b a s i c f o u r : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e income of t h e husband's f i a n c e e i n awarding maintenance t o t h e wife. 2. Whether t h e husband's r i g h t t o equal p r o t e c t i o n was v i o l a t e d by awarding t h e wife a s h a r e of h i s r e t i r e m e n t benef its. 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment is a n u l l i t y s i n c e it d i d n o t s t a t e i n its f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e was i r r e t r i e v a b l y b r o k e n o r t h a t o n e o f t h e p a r t i e s was d o m i c i l e d i n Montana. The husband c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d its d i s c r e t i o n b e c a u s e a 78%-22% p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n is p e r se i n e q u i t a b l e and b e c a u s e t h e v a l u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p l a c e d on t h e main m a r i t a l a s s e t s were b a s e d on s p e c u l a t i v e and i n c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e . I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e 78%- 22% p r o p o r t i o n d o e s n o t i n c l u d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s and is t h e r e f o r e m i s l e a d i n g . I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d its d i s c r e t i o n , t h e s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w is 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 w i t h o u t employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment o r exceeded t h e bounds o f r e a s o n 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 re t h e M a r r i a g e o f Creon ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . - - , 635 P.2d 1 3 0 8 , 38 St.Rep. 1828; I n re Mar- r i a g e o f M a r t e n s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 637 P.2d 523, 38 The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d u t y under s e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 0 2 ( 1 ) , MCA, is t o c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t o r s t h e r e i n and t h e n d i v i d e t h e p r o p e r t y e q u i t a b l y . An e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n d o e s n o t n e c e s - s a r i l y mean an e q u a l d i v i s i o n . A s h a s been n o t e d many times by t h i s C o u r t , and most r e c e n t l y i n M a r t e n s : " ' A l t h o u g h - t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t - - - - may e q u a l l y d i v i d e t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , s u c h a d i s t r i b u - t i o n is n o t mandated by s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA . . . S e c t i o n 40-4-202 is f l e x i b l e and it ~-~ v e s t s a good d e a l o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t . . . W e h a v e s t a t e d , b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e , t h a t e a c h c a s e must b e l o o k e d a t i n d i v i d u a l l y , w i t h a n e y e t o its u n i q u e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . . .' ( C i t a - t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) I n R e M a r r i a g e o f Aanenson I n Finding of F a c t No. 1 7 , t h e D i s t r i c t Court gave e x t e n s i v e r e a s o n s f o r g i v i n g t h e w i f e 78% of t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y : t h e wife h a s been s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r mortgage payments on t h e family home s i n c e 1979, t h e l e n g t h of t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e d e v o t i o n of t h e wife t o h e r d i s a b l e d c h i l d , and t h e g r e a t d i s p a r i t y i n e a r n i n g c a p a b i l i t y . The D i s t r i c t Court recognized t h a t t h e wife was r e c e i v i n g an u n u s u a l l y l a r g e percentage of t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and t o e q u a l i z e t h e s i t u a t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t award t h e w i f e a s much of t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a s she had requested. I f t h e d i v i s i o n of r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s is c o n s i d e r e d , t h e wife i n a c t u a l i t y is r e c e i v i n g l e s s t h a n 78% of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . C l e a r l y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court c o n s i d e r e d t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, and used v e r y c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment i n d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y . The husband n e x t contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d not have s u f f i c i e n t competent evidence t o p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . While it is t r u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t g i v e n t h e b e s t evidence on which t o base its valua- t i o n s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of v a l u e s w i l l s t a n d u n l e s s t h e y a r e c l e a r l y erroneous. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.H.Civ.P.; I n r e Marriage of Creon, s u p r a . There is nothing i n t h e record t o show t h a t its v a l u a t i o n s were c l e a r l y erroneous. A D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of maintenance must be made i n accordance with t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 40-4- 283, MCA. I t is w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n determining whether a spouse seeking maintenance " l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t p r o p e r t y " t o p r o v i d e f o r her need, " s u f f i c i e n t p r o p e r t y " means income p r o d u c i n g , n o t income consuming , p r o p e r t y . See s e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 0 3 ( l ) ( a ) , MCA; I n r e t h e M a r r i a g e of Herron ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 608 P.2d 9 7 , 37 St.Rep. 387; I n re t h e Mar- - r i a g e of Bowman ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. - , 633 P.2d 1 1 9 8 , 38 St.Rep. 1515. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e n a t u r e of t h e p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d and t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 40-4-203, MCA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t no m a t t e r how f a v o r a b l e t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n was t o t h e w i f e , s u c h a d i s t r i b u t i o n c a n n o t s u b s t i t u t e c o m p l e t e l y f o r m a i n t e n a n c e . While we a g r e e t h a t t h e w i f e r e q u i r e s some main- t e n a n c e , it must be n o t e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i m p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o n t h l y s p e n d a b l e income. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t l o o k e d o n l y t o t h e f e d e r a l t a x e s d e d u c t e d from t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o n t h l y paycheck. I t f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r o t h e r d e d u c t i o n s , s u c h a s s t a t e t a x e s , r e t i r e m e n t payments, h e a l t h and l i f e i n s u r a n c e payments and u n i o n d u e s , i n d e t e r - m i n i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o n t h l y s p e n d a b l e income. T h i s e r r o r is n o t c a u s e f o r remand, however, s i n c e t h e husband is s t i l l a b l e t o pay $350 p e r month i n m a i n t e n a n c e . Under s e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 0 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) , MCA, t h e 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 arnount o f m a i n t e n a n c e , must con- s i d e r t h e f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y o f t h e s p o u s e paying m a i n t e n a n c e t o meet h i s own n e e d s w h i l e m e e t i n g t h e n e e d s of h i s s p o u s e . When t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o n t h l y d e d u c t i o n s a r e s u b t r a c t e d from t h e f i g u r e s used by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h e h u s b a n d ' s rnonthly s p e n d a b l e incorne seems t o b e $300 l e s s p e r month t h a n o r i g i n a l l y c a l c u l a t e d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e husband h a s incorne which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t u s e i n d e t e r m i n i n g h i s spendable ~ n o n t h l y income--namely, t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s by h i s f i a n c e e , h i s t a x r e b a t e , and t h e r e n t a l f e e f o r h i s mobile home. Taking i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e $401if per month c o n t r i b u t e d by t h e husband's f i a n c e e , t h e $1,286 t a x refund r e c e i v e d by t h e husband, and t h e $165 per month r e n t a l f e e f o r t h e mobile home, it is a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e husband is s t i l l a b l e t o pay t h e $350 per month i n maintenance. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s m i s c a l c u l a t i o n i s , t h e r e f o r e , h a r m l e s s e r r o r . The husband contends t h a t under Duffey v. Duffey (1981) - Mont . - , 631 P.2d 697, 38 St.Rep. 1105, t h e income of t h e husband's f i a n c e e c a n n o t be used i n d e t e r - mining t h e husband's a b i l i t y t o pay. Duffey is n o t on p o i n t h e r e . I t d e a l s with t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a p r e s e n t w i f e ' s income i n determining t h e a b i l i t y of t h e husband t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t . T h i s Court has p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d and approved a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c a l c u l a t i o n of "family" n e t income based on t h e e a r n i n g s of t h e husband and h i s f u t u r e wife. T h i s f i g u r e was used t o determine t h e f u t u r e a b i l i t y of t h e husband t o pay maintenance. See, I n t h e Marriage of Cromwell ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 40, 588 P.2d 1010. W e s e e no reason n o t t o f o l l o w t h e Cromwell c a s e . The income of t h e husband's f i a n c e e may, t i ~ e r e f o r e , be used t o determine t h e husband's f u t u r e finan- c i a l s t a t u s . The husband a l s o contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by awarding t h e w i f e $1,050 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and $541 i n c o s t s . Under s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, a D i s t r i c t Court is g i v e n d i s c r e t i o n t o award a r e a s o n a b l e amount i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r t o cornmencernent of a pro- ceeding and a f t e r e n t r y of judgment. I n Wilson v. Bean (1981) , - Mont. , 628 P.2d 287, 38 St.Rep. 751, we s e t down t h e s t a n d a r d f o r reviewing t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s : " I n o r d e r t o be awarded f e e s pursuant t o s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, t h e p e t i t i o n i n g p a r t y nus st make a showing of n e c e s s i t y . . . The award must be r e a s o n a b l e , and must be based on competent evidence. . . Reasonableness is shown by means of a hearing allowing f o r o r a l testimony, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x h i b i t s , and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine. . . The award w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d by t h i s Court i f it is supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. . ." ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) 628 P.2d a t 289. Here, testimony was p r e s e n t e d and n e c e s s i t y shown f o r t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s . An uncontested a f f i d a v i t was submitted showing t h e c o s t s t h e wife i n c u r r e d when s h e t r a v e l e d t o Montana t o c o n t e s t t h i s c a s e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s is, t h e r e f o r e , supported by t h e record. The husband contends n e x t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by awarding t o t h e wife one-third of t h e b e n e f i t s from each of t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t p l a n s . The husband c l a i m s t h a t such an award is an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n l i g h t of t h e l a r g e amount of p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e w i f e and i n l i g h t of t h e amount of maintenance awarded. The husband a l s o contends t h a t by awarding t h e wife a p o r t i o n of h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t t o equal p r o t e c t i o n under t h e laws. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s c a n n o t i n i t s e l f be c o n s i d e r e d u n f a i r . The D i s t r i c t Court e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d t h a t maintenance would d i s c o n t i n u e when t h e nusband r e t i r e s . I n l i g h t of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u p p o r t i n g an award of maintenance h e r e , t h e s u b s t i t u t i n g of a p o r t i o n of r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s f o r n a i n t e n a n c e cannot be considered an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . The husband's equal p r o t e c t i o n argument l a c k s any m e r i t s i n c e it was n o t r a i s e d a t t r i a l and s i n c e t h e r e is no " p l a i n e r r o r " i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . See, Easton v. Easton ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. 416, 574 P.2d 989, and Halldorson v. Halldorson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 IJIont. 170, 573 P.2d 169. The husband's argument a l s o f a i l s because no c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was c r e a t e d a s he contends. The husband c l a i m s t h a t two r e c e n t Supreme Court c a s e s s e t up a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n "which d i s c r i m i n a t e s i n its a p p l i c a t i o n t o d i v o r c e s e t t l e m e n t s a g a i n s t persons whose r e t i r e m e n t s a r e n o t under t h e F e d e r a l R a i l r o a d Retirement Act o r from t h e M i l i t a r y . " See, Hisquierdo v, Hisquierdo ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 439 U,S. 572, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1; McCarty v. McCarty ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 49 U.S.L.W. 4850; f o r Montana's r e c o g n i t i o n o f McCarty s e e , I n r e t h e Marriage of McGill ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont . , 637 P.2d 1182, 38 St.Rep. 2105. Q u i t e simply, n e i t h e r Hisquierdo nor McCarty gave r i s e t o such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . These c a s e s were merely c o n s t r u i n g f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s and d i s c e r n i n g t h e i n t e n t of Congress i n e n a c t i n g t h o s e s p e c i f i c r e t i r e m e n t p l a n s . These c a s e s had no e f f e c t on any p r i v a t e o r o t h e r f e d e r a l r e t i r e - ment p l a n s . The husband is arguing a p p l e s and oranges. I t is we11 e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s s t a t e and i n most o t h e r s t a t e s t h a t , a s a g e n e r a l r u l e , r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a r e p a r t of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . For l i s t of c a s e s , s e e 94 /.) k A.L.R.3d4A3 e t seq.; I n r e t h e Marriage of Karr ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - ivlont . , 628 P.2d 267, 38 St.Rep. 506, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . The reasoning behind t h i s r u l e is t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n c l p p o r t i o n i n g t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , inust c o n s i d e r " t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f e a c h f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f c d p i t a l a s s e t s and income." S e c t i o n 4Q-4-202 (1) , MCA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l i c i t l y found t h a t m a i n t e n a n c e would end when t h e husband r e t i r e d . A s a form o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and a s a s u b s t i t u t e f o r m a i n t e n a n c e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e w i f e a o n e - t h i r d s h a r e i n e a c h o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t p l a n s . T h i s w e l l - r e a s o n e d s o l u t i o n is s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e o f t h e w i f e ' s f u t u r e n e e d s and t h e h u s b a n d ' s f u t u r e a b i l i t y t o meet t h o s e n e e d s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d p p o r t i o n m e n t o f r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e u p h e l d . The l a s t c o n t e n t i o n r a i s e d by t h e husband is w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o f i n d t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e was i r r e t r i e v a b l y b r o k e n and t o f i n d t h a t o n e o f t h e p a r t i e s h a s been d o m i c i l e d i n Montana f o r n i n e t y d a y s makes t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment v o i d f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . The husband f a i l e d t o make any e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. F a i l u r e t o make s u c h e x c e p t i o n s is f a t a l when t h e i s s u e i n v o l v e d d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s . S e e , I n re t h e M a r r i a g e o f B a r r o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 1 6 1 , 580 P.2d 936; T u r n e r v . T u r n e r ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157 Mont. 262, 484 P.2d 1303; and H a l l d o r s o n , s u p r a . Here, t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n b o t h o v e r t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r and t h e p a r t i e s . The f a i l u r e t o make t h e s e f i n d i n g s , i n t h i s c a s e , is m e r e l y a t e c h n i c a l o v e r s i g h t by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s . The h u s b a n d ' s f a i l u r e t o e x c e p t t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , t h e r e f o r e , p r e c l u d e s t h i s C o u r t from r e v i e w o f t h e m a t t e r . F i n d i n g no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i t s judyrnent is a f f i r m e d . R e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r r e a s o n - a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s is g r a n t e d and remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r p r o p e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n . W e c o n c u r :