Opinion ID: 878054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to divide property according to court-ordered plan and failure of husband to account for assets

Text: Appellant wife contends that the District Court erred in failing to meet its stated objective of dividing the property 60 percent to the husband and 40 percent to the wife. We agree. Section 40-4-202, MCA, requires the equitable distribution of the parties' property in a dissolution proceeding. This property includes the property and assets belonging to either or both, however and whenever acquired. For all property to be distributed it must all first be valued and included in the gross marital estate. That did not occur in this matter. As we stated in Lippert v. Lippert (Mont. 1981), 627 P.2d 1206, 38 St.Rep. 625: A proper disposition of marital property in a dissolution proceeding requires a finding of the net worth of the parties at or near the time of the dissolution. Hamilton v. Hamilton (1980), Mont., 607 P.2d 102, 37 St.Rep. 247; Vivian v. Vivian (1978), [178] Mont. [341], 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359; Kramer v. Kramer (1978), 177 Mont. 61, 580 P.2d 439; Downs v. Downs (1976), 170 Mont. 150, 551 P.2d 1025. The basic reason for the rule is obvious; however, it is equally apparent that application of the rule is dependent upon the kinds of marital assets under consideration. The time for proper valuation cannot be tied to any single event in the dissolution process. The filing of a petition, trial of the matter, or even the granting of the decree of dissolution do not control the proper point of evaluation by the District Court. However, while there may be no standard, fixed time to properly value the marital assets, in this case the District Court clearly erred in valuing the 1982 crops in February rather than around harvest time. This early valuation resulted in the elimination of a significant asset from the gross marital estate. This in itself is sufficient error to destroy the court's proposed 60-40 distribution. However, the court compounded its error by valuing the debts of the parties at the time of trial. Consequently, while the wife was not allowed to share in the profits of the ranch accrued since the date of separation, she was nevertheless charged with a proportionate share of the debts which accrued during that same time period. This is fundamentally unfair and constitutes clear error on the part of the District Court. It is also clear from a thorough review of the file on this matter that the court valued some assets at their depreciated value as listed on the parties' income tax returns instead of at their fair market value. Yet there is no finding stating that the depreciated value is equal to fair market value of certain items of equipment. Without such a finding we hold the District Court's decision was clearly erroneous. The 60-40 split also fails in that the court failed to require the husband to account for all marital assets in his possession and under his control during the separation of the parties. Without an accounting of all assets the gross marital estate cannot be determined and the property cannot be equitably divided. The cumulative effect of the foregoing errors contribute to the court's failure in fact to divide the property on a 60-40 basis. We have held that when the trial court's findings and conclusions do not adhere to its decision to split the marital property on a certain percentage basis, the trial court's judgment distributing assets of the marriage must be vacated and remanded. In re Marriage of Gohner (Mont. 1980), 609 P.2d 288, 37 St.Rep. 613. Therefore, this matter must also be vacated and remanded on this issue. The greatest error which wife claims destroys the 60-40 split is the undervaluation of the ranch which is the main asset of the parties. Appellant wife submitted an appraisal at trial prepared by an accredited rural appraiser (the Hall appraisal). Hall was available at trial and testified as to his valuation procedures. Hall valued the ranch at $386,110. Husband's appraisal was admitted into evidence by stipulation (the Wright appraisal). Wright valued the ranch at $283,300. We also note that there was a bona fide offer for the ranch in the amount of $350,000. We further note a discrepancy between the appraisals as to the number of irrigated acres. In most material respects, the two appraisals are diametrically opposed. We stated in Biegalke v. Biegalke (1977), 172 Mont. 311, 564 P.2d 987, that the trier of the facts has the discretion to give whatever weight he sees fit to the testimony of the expert from 0 to 100%. However, Biegalke is distinguishable in that the parties there agreed to the court appointment of a single appraiser, stipulated to his qualifications, and generally accepted his appraisal without objection. On appeal, we held the court properly exercised its discretion in determining valuation. In the instant case, as in Peterson v. Peterson (Mont. 1981), 636 P.2d 821, 38 St.Rep. 1723, the parties secured different appraisers who presented widely conflicting valuations. Unlike Peterson, here, upon review of the record, we cannot say the District Court improperly exercised its discretion in selecting the value it did based upon the findings of fact as stated.