Opinion ID: 884792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reduction for Lack of Access

Text: ¶20 Finally, George argues the court erred in determining not to reduce the value of certain real property due to lack of access. More specifically, George argues that because the Red Hill property is landlocked, the court erred in determining not to reduce the file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-392%20Opinion.htm (7 of 12)4/20/2007 2:53:31 PM Marriage of Berg land's value by 30 percent to account for lack of access. George points to expert testimony from Wicks in which he opined that lack of access would affect the value of the Red Hill property, and concluded that a $36,000 reduction in its value would be appropriate. ¶21 The court ultimately chose not to reduce the value of the Red Hill property by 30 percent, finding that even without legal access, George has been able to harvest approximately 800,000 board feet of timber off 140 acres at a value of at least $80,000, and he still owns the real property and remaining timber. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the court did not err in finding it unnecessary to reduce the value of the Red Hill property due to lack of access. ISSUE 2 ¶22 Did the District Court err in its distribution of the marital estate? ¶23 We review a district court's division of marital property to determine whether its findings of fact are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Hogstad (1996), 275 Mont. 489, 496, 914 P.2d 584, 588. If substantial credible evidence supports the district court's findings and judgment, we will not disturb its decision absent an abuse of discretion. Hogstad, 275 Mont. at 496, 914 P.2d at 588. We review a district court's conclusions of law relating to the division of marital property to determine whether those conclusions are correct. In re Marriage of Danelson (1992), 253 Mont. 310, 317, 833 P.2d 215, 219-20. A. Liquidation Costs ¶24 George argues the District Court erred in failing to consider liquidation costs in its distribution of the marital estate. George asserts that both parties have acknowledged that there can be no distribution without liquidation of assets, and that liquidation would be necessary to meet outstanding liabilities, file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-392%20Opinion.htm (8 of 12)4/20/2007 2:53:31 PM Marriage of Berg including the workers' compensation bill discussed above. George thus argues the court abused its discretion by failing to consider liquidation costs in its distribution of the marital estate. ¶25 As Pia argues, however, the court awarded her property, in the form of real estate and timber, thereby devising a property distribution pursuant to which no liquidation appears necessary. In its order denying George's motion for a new trial, the court specifically stated that it did not consider liquidation costs in arriving at its decision because the record contained absolutely no evidence that George intended to liquidate any assets in satisfaction of sawmill liabilities. Rather, the court noted, the evidence is clear [that] George intends to continue to operate the Berg sawmill as he is doing today, and that [l]iabilities will be paid from the profits of the sawmill as they have been in the past. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to consider liquidation costs in its distribution of the marital estate. B. Properties Acquired During Separation ¶26 George contends the court erred by including properties acquired during the parties' separation in the value of the marital estate. More specifically, George asserts the court erred in including the Red Hill property, purchased in January 1990, and the Lewistown Stafford Addition, purchased in 1992. George additionally argues the court erred in including in the marital estate a number of properties purchased in 1993. George asserts that, because he acquired these properties following the parties' separation, which he alleges occurred prior to January 1992, the court erred in including their value in the marital estate and including them in the property distribution. ¶27 Although George argues he and Pia separated prior to 1992, the court specifically found otherwise, noting that Pia did not move permanently from the family home until 1992. The Red Hill property was acquired in 1990, well prior to the parties' separation. Accordingly, we conclude the court did not err in considering it a file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-392%20Opinion.htm (9 of 12)4/20/2007 2:53:31 PM Marriage of Berg part of the marital estate. ¶28 To determine whether the court erred in including property acquired after the parties' separation in 1992 in the marital estate, we turn to the provisions of Sec. 40-4-202, MCA, which controls the division of property in dissolution proceedings. Section 40-4-202(1), MCA, specifically provides that: In a proceeding for dissolution of a marriage . . . the court, without regard to marital misconduct, shall . . . finally equitably apportion between the parties the property and assets belonging to either or both, however and whenever acquired and whether the title thereto is in the name of the husband or wife or both. (Emphasis added.) ¶29 Pursuant to the specific terms of Sec. 40-4-202, MCA, and in light of the fact that George has pointed to no authority to the contrary, we conclude the court did not err in including properties acquired following the parties' separation in 1992 in its distribution of the marital estate. ISSUE 3 ¶30 Did the District Court err by imputing income to George in the determination of his child support obligation? ¶31 We review a district court's award of child support for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Craib (1994), 266 Mont. 483, 490, 880 P.2d 1379, 1384. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-392%20Opinion.htm (10 of 12)4/20/2007 2:53:31 PM Marriage of Berg ¶32 On appeal, George argues the court abused its discretion in imputing income to him in the amount of $50,000 per year for the purposes of determining his child support obligation. Two of the parties' five children, both minors, reside with Pia. Although George does not take issue with the custody arrangement, he does dispute the court's determination that he pay a total of $996 in child support each month. George asserts that his actual income is roughly $12,000 per year, rather than the $50,000 imputed by the court, and that he should thus be required to pay a total of only $40 per month in child support. ¶33 In calculating George's child support obligation, the court reviewed the parties' income tax returns for the years 1988 through 1995, and found that they reflect[ed] a much greater income for George than he is projecting for child support purposes. The court thus found that through the sawmill and ancillary income producing assets (including yaks and leased property) owned by George, it [would] impute income of $50,000 per year for purposes of child support calculations. ¶34 Moreover, in its order denying George's motion for a new trial, the court again explained that, in calculating child support, it had carefully analyzed all of the tax returns submitted to the Court and noted many unusual deductions in addition to depreciation and Sec. 179 deductions. The Court also was aware, through testimony, that George essentially pays all of his bills from the sawmill including his personal legal fees. This is a sawmill that generates from 3-4 million dollars in annual income. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-392%20Opinion.htm (11 of 12)4/20/2007 2:53:31 PM Marriage of Berg ¶35 Having reviewed the record, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in imputing $50,000 of annual income to George, and in ordering him to pay a total of $996 per month in child support. ¶36 Affirmed. /S/ JIM REGNIER We Concur: /S/ J. A. TURNAGE /S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR. /S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-392%20Opinion.htm (12 of 12)4/20/2007 2:53:31 PM