Title: MARRIAGE OF COLLETT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-145
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 12, 1981

No. 80-145 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1980 I N R E THE MARRIAGE O F M. J. COLLETT, P e t i t i o n e r and Appellant, E V E L Y N COLLETT, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h 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 J e f f e r s o n , The Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Skedd and Ashley, Helena, Montana For Respondent : J a r d i n e & McCarthy, Whitehall, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : October 2 4 , 1980 Decided : *CAN 1 2 19% M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . The J e f f e r s o n County District Court e n t e r e d a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n i n t h i s case on December 7, 1979. M. J. Collett, t h e husband, a p p e a l s from t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h a t d e c r e e r e l a t i n g to t h e v a l u a t i o n of t h e marital e s t a t e , t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n , t h e award of maintenance and t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s . Following n i n e t e e n y e a r s of m a r r i a g e , t h e husband 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 i n t h e J e f f e r s o n County D i s t r i c t Court on May 24, 1979. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on August 1, 1979. The main s u b j e c t of t h e h e a r i n g was t h e v a l u e of s e v e r a l marital assets and t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s . The husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n was f i l e d , he had a p p r o x i m a t e l y $17,000 o n d e p o s i t a t t h e Helena C r e d i t Union. H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s o l d a b o a t f o r $9,000 a f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . However, t h e r e c o r d is n o t clear as to what was done w i t h t h e s e funds between t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g . M . J. Collett and Evelyn Collett, t h e w i f e , s u b s t a n t i a l l y a g r e e d on t h e approximate v a l u e of most of t h e items comprising t h e marital estate. The main c o n t r o v e r s y on appeal i n v o l v e s t h e amount of c a s h included i n t h e District C o u r t ' s v a l u a t i o n of t h e marital estate and t h e c o u r t I s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s to t h e m a r i t a l estate. The a p p e l l a n t ' s primary f o c u s is upon t h e p r o c e e d s from t h e sale of a tract of land and house. The husband's grandmother, Rose S q u i r e s , purchased t h e p r o p e r t y i n 1967 f o r $18,500. T i t l e w a s h e l d by R o s e S q u i r e s and t h e husband i n j o i n t t e n a n c y u n t i l 1972, when M r s . S q u i r e s q u i t c l a i m e d h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e husband. S h o r t l y after t h i s t r a n s f e r , t h e husband c r e a t e d a j o i n t tenancy i n t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h t h e w i f e . The p a r t i e s and t h e i r two c h i l d r e n l i v e d on t h e p r o p e r t y from 1967 through J u n e of 1978, when t h e p r o p e r t y was s o l d f o r $65,000. Of t h e $65,000 i n sale p r o c e e d s , $28,380 was used as a down payment on a p a r c e l of land and t r a i l e r home and $17,000 was p l a c e d i n t h e Helena C r e d i t Union. The remainder of t h e p r o c e e d s is n o t accounted f o r . Following t h e h e a r i n g , the District Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g each p a r t y t o f i l e a v e r i f i e d s t a t e m e n t of t h e marital assets valued as of May 24, 1979, t h e d a t e t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . The o r d e r f u r t h e r provided t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y could r e q u e s t a h e a r i n g on t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h e v e r i f i e d s t a t e m e n t s . Both par- t i e s f i l e d s t a t e m e n t s of t h e m a r i t a l assets. The w i f e ' s state- ment v a l u e s t h e n e t marital assets a t $79,130. The husband's s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t e s a n e t marital estate of $60,465. Although t h e w i f e ' s s t a t e m e n t i n c l u d e s s e v e r a l items not included i n t h e husband 's s t a t e m e n t , t h e major d i f f e r e n c e s are: husband I s s t a t e - ment states t h a t c a s h on d e p o s i t a t t h e c r e d i t union t o t a l l e d $9,000, w h i l e t h e w i f e s t a t e d t h e c o r r e c t amount was $17,000; w i f e ' s s t a t e m e n t i n c l u d e s a $3600 camper t r a i l e r w h i l e t h e hus- band states t h a t it was purchased af t e r May 24, 1979; w i f e ' s sta- tement i n c l u d e s a $1500 c o o l e r while husband's s t a t e m e n t is s i l e n t a s t o t h i s i t e m ; husband's s t a t e m e n t i n c l u d e s a $2315 l i a b i l i t y w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n and s e v e r a l items had d i f f e r e n t v a l u a t i o n s a s s i g n e d by t h e p a r t i e s . N e i t h e r p a r t y r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e v a l u a t i o n . The w i f e s o u g h t c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o u p l e ' s minor c h i l d and t h e use of t h e f a m i l y ' s home u n t i l t h e c h i l d a t t a i n s m a j o r i t y . She also sought a t t o r n e y f e e s . The p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e marital estate should be e q u a l l y d i v i d e d , and main- t e n a n c e was never s o u g h t by e i t h e r spouse. The D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclu- s i o n s of l a w , and d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n on December 7, 1979. The District Court found t h a t t h e husband e x e r c i s e d dominion o v e r t h e $17,000 c a s h proceeds from t h e 1978 real estate s a l e by withdrawing t h e funds from t h e c r e d i t union af t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n and t h a t he also e x e r c i s e d dominion o v e r $9000 r e c e i v e d from t h e sale of a b o a t af ter t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n . The c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o e q u a l l y d i v i d e t h e marital estate; however, t h e w i f e was g i v e n t h e use and p o s s e s s i o n of t h e f a m i l y t r a i l e r home u n t i l t h e 1 2 y e a r o l d minor r e a c h e s m a j o r i t y . I t was f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e house and land are t o be s o l d when t h e c h i l d a t t a i n s m a j o r i t y , w i t h t h e proceeds e q u a l l y d i v i d e d by t h e p a r t i e s a t t h a t t i m e . The c o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e r e q u i r e d a d d i t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e and o r d e r e d t h e husband to pay $150 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t and $100 p e r month maintenance p l u s p r o v i d i n g h e a l t h and d e n t a l i n s u r a n c e . Husband was also r e q u i r e d to pay r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s of $350. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e husband "be r e q u i r e d t o pay t h e remaining b a l a n c e remaining unpaid upon s a i d home and land as it becomes due i n p a r t i a l recompense f o r t h e f a i l u r e of p e t i t i o n e r t o a c c o u n t t o r e s p o n d e n t f o r h e r s h a r e of t h e [ p r o c e e d s of t h e 1978 real estate s a l e . ] " M. J. Collett raises t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n v a l u i n g and d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e marital a s s e t s ? 2. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding maintenance t o t h e w i f e when it was never r e q u e s t e d ? 3. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s w i t h o u t any f i n d i n g o r e v i d e n c e upon n e c e s s i t y or r e a s o n a b l e n e s s ? The husband f i r s t contends t h a t t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n v a l u i n g t h e marital estate by v a l u i n g items upon which no competent e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d . W e a g r e e . T h i s Court h a s addressed numerous i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g t h e v a l u a t i o n of marital estates i n r e c e n t y e a r s . The v a l u a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e marital estate is governed by s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. The s t a t u t e v e s t s t h e D i s t r i c t Court w i t h broad d i s c r e t i o n to e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e marital assets, and o u r s c o p e of review is l i m i t e d to d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s abused its d i s c r e t i o n . However, t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n sec- t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, must be c o n s i d e r e d and r e f e r r e d to i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and t h e r e must be competent e v i - dence p r e s e n t e d on t h e v a l u e s of t h e p r o p e r t y . See I n re Marriage of Herron ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 608 P.2d 97, 37 St.Rep. 387; Dahl v. Dahl ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 307, 577 P.2d 1230. I n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d on t h e e x i s t e n c e of s e v e r a l items of p r o p e r t y or t h e v a l u e s t h e r e o f . The District Court r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y on s t a t e m e n t s of and v a l u a t i o n s of assets submitted by t h e p a r t i e s . Where one item appeared on one of t h e p a r t i e s ' s t a t e m e n t and n o t on t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s ' s t a t e m e n t t h e c o u r t included t h e i t e m a t t h e v a l u e s t a t e d . When t h e p a r t i e s d i s a g r e e d on a v a l u a t i o n t h e c o u r t a s s i g n e d a v a l u e halfway between t h e two submitted v a l u a t i o n s . The husband also a s s e r t e d t h a t s e v e r a l of t h e items l i s t e d on t h e w i f e ' s s t a t e m e n t of a s s e t s were purchased a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e s e items were c o n s i d e r e d twice -- o n c e i n t h e amount of c a s h on hand on May 24, 1979, and a g a i n on t h e amount of t h e asset purchased a f t e r s a i d d a t e . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e District Court p u r p o r t e d to e q u a l l y d i v i d e t h e estate. T h i s , however, was n o t done. The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e e q u i t y i n t h e f a m i l y trailer home and land s h o u l d be e q u a l l y d i v i d e d , b u t t h e n r e q u i r e d t h e husband t o make a l l f u t u r e payments on t h e p r o p e r t y i n " p a r t i a l recompense" f o r h i s p r i o r conduct. T h i s s p e c i f i c c o n c l u s i o n , which is p r e v i o u s l y q u o t e d , is a k i n to an a s s e s s m e n t of p u n i t i v e damages. S e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e c o u r t is n o t to con- s i d e r any marital misconduct i n d i s p o s i n g of t h e marital assets. A s we s t a t e d i n Cook v. Cook ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 614 3 1 1 , I \ "The v a l u a t i o n of assets and t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f n e t worth are two i m p o r t a n t s t e p s which must b e made by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s i n t h e apportion- ment p r o c e s s . . . From t h e s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , a b a s i s is provided from which a D i s t r i c t Court may make, o r an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may d e c i d e , t h a t a n apportionment is e q u i t a b l e . Without t h e s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of marital assets amounts o n l y to guesswork. T h i s case must, t h e r e f o r e , be remanded t o t h e District Court s o t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' marital e s t a t e may be d i s t r i b u t e d on t h i s b a s i s . "By o u r d e c i s i o n today, we . . . intend o n l y to reemphasize t h e importance of t a k i n g c e r t a i n p r e l i m i n a r y s t e p s be£ ore p r o p e r t y is d i s t r i b u t e d . Where p a r t i e s cannot a g r e e as t o t h e v a l u e of a p a r t i c u l a r asset, we f u r t h e r encourage c o u n s e l t o p r o v i d e ample testimony f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e g a r d i n g v a l u e s . . ." I n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e District C o u r t ' s v a l u a t i o n of many of t h e m a r i t a l assets amounts t o "guesswork," p r i m a r i l y due t o t h e a t t o r n e y s ' f a i l u r e " t o p r o v i d e ample t e s t i m o n y f o r t h e District Court r e g a r d i n g v a l u e s . " W e t h e r e f o r e remand t h i s cause t o t h e District Court t o r e q u i r e t h e p a r t i e s to submit competent e v i d e n c e on t h e v a l u e of d i s p u t e d items of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and t h e r e f o r e to e q u i t a b l y d i s t r i b u t e t h e assets p u r s u a n t to t h e fac- t o r s provided i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. The husband on a p p e a l a r g u e s t h a t he should be g i v e n c r e d i t f o r t h e v a l u e of t h e land g i f t e d t o him by h i s grand- mother. To p a r a p h r a s e h i s argument, t h e District Court should g i v e t h e husband c r e d i t f o r t h e value of t h e land e x c l u s i v e of t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n o c c u r r i n g a f t e r 1972, when he c r e a t e d a j o i n t t e n a n c y w i t h h i s w i f e . However, p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of p r o p e r t y by g i f t is o n l y one f a c t o r to be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of b o t h s p o u s e s . W e have c o n s t r u e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e r e c e i p t of a g i f t or i n h e r i t a n c e i n s e v e r a l r e c e n t c a s e s . I n re Marriage of Herron, s u p r a ; I n re Marriage of Metcalf ( 1979 ) , Mont . , 598 P.2d 1140, 36 St.Rep. 1559; I n re Marriage of Balsam ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 589 P.2d 652, 36 St.Rep. 79; I n re Marriage of Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 587 P.2d 361, 35 St.Rep. 1733. Upon remand t h e D i s t r i c t Court s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e g u i d e l i n e s provided by sect i o n 40-4-202, MCA, and t h e s e cases i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s . With regard t o t h e award of maintenance, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d to c o n s i d e r t h e g u i d e l i n e s provided i n s e c t i o n 40-4-203, MCA, and made no s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s w i t h regard to t h e award of maintenance. It a p p e a r s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court based its award of maintenance on t h r e e e r r o n e o u s o r unsupported f i n d i n g s : (1) Wife r e c e i v e s a n e t sum of $400 p e r month from h e r employment; ( 2 ) s h e is e n t i t l e d to w e l f a r e a s s i s t a n c e ; and ( 3 ) husband h a s o n l y f u r n i s h e d w i f e w i t h $400 f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e f a m i l y w i t h i n t h e l a s t n i n e months. The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t t h e w i f e is employed by t h e S t a t e a t t h e Boulder R i v e r S c h o o l , b u t no e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e w i f e ' s e a r n i n g s was p r e s e n t e d . Wife I s t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t s h e was e l i g i b l e f o r w e l f a r e a s s i s t a n c e a t a t i m e when s h e was on s t r i k e b u t t h e r e was no evi- dence p r e s e n t e d on h e r c u r r e n t s t a t u s . With regard to t h e amount f u r n i s h e d by husband f o r s u p p o r t , t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s t h a t he paid $400-$500 p l u s paying t h e u t i l i t y charge a c c o u n t and o t h e r s i m i - l a r b i l l s i n t h e t h r e e months p r i o r to t h e h e a r i n g . A s pre- v i o u s l y s t a t e d , n e i t h e r p a r t y s o u g h t maintenance. F u r t h e r , a t t h e h e a r i n g t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e would be s a t i s f i e d w i t h a n e q u a l d i v i s i o n of t h e marital estate, $200 per month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t p l u s h e a l t h b e n e f i t s and a n e q u a l d i v i s i o n of t h e house and land payments. Upon remand t h e District Court should c o n s i d e r t h e g u i d e l i n e s provided i n s e c t i o n 40-4-203, MCA, i f maintenance is awarded. Next a p p e l l a n t asserts t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s to t h e w i f e . W e a g r e e . Again, t h e District Court made no f i n d i n g s of n e c e s s i t y f o r o r r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e award o f $350. A l s o , t h e r e c o r d does n o t d i s c l o s e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d how t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n , c h i l d s u p p o r t , main- t e n a n c e and award of a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t e r r e l a t e . The judgment of t h e District Court is vacated and t h e c a u s e remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opi- n i o n and t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n s 40-4-202 and 40-4-203, MCA. For a l l concerned it is b e s t t h a t t h e r e be a f u l l h e a r i n g upon t h e v a l u a t i o n of and c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e marital estate as w e l l a s t h e s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s , t a k i n g i n t o account t h e f a c t o r s provided i n t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t .