Opinion ID: 880226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue 2. Did the District Court err in awarding maintenance to the respondent in the amount of $300/month for three years?

Text: Section 40-4-203, MCA, sets out the guidelines for awarding a spouse maintenance in a dissolution proceeding. Maintenance may only be awarded if the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property to provide for that spouse's reasonable needs. Section 40-4-203(1), MCA. The statute also mandates that the trial court consider relevant facts of the situation including the financial resources of the spouse seeking maintenance, the ability of the maintenance paying spouse to meet his own needs, and the standard of living established during the marriage. Section 40-4-203(2), MCA. In reviewing the award of maintenance, we once again note the latitude accorded the trial court: An award of maintenance is related only to the needs of the spouse seeking maintenance ... The District Court has wide discretion in the determination of maintenance awards, and that discretion is not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. (Citations omitted.) In re Marriage of Aanenson (1979), 183 Mont. 229, 235, 598 P.2d 1120, 1123. The District Court made a specific finding that Lucinda needs the maintenance payments to meet her monthly expenses and Ronald is capable of making the payment. There is substantial evidence in the record to support this finding. Ronald makes over $35,000 per year while Lucinda is paid much less. Ronald also has more disposable income since he no longer makes land payments and does not pay rent since he now lives with his girlfriend. Ronald asserts that Lucinda received sufficient property in the property division to support herself. However, the court awarded Lucinda, based on her contributions, only twenty percent of the value of the property. In establishing the amount and duration of maintenance it is appropriate for the District Court to consider whether the assets awarded in the property division consume or produce income and whether employment is appropriate. Bowman v. Bowman (Mont. 1981), 633 P.2d 1198, 1200-1201, 38 St.Rep. 1515, 1518. Additionally, appropriate employment must be determined with relation to the standard of living achieved by the parties during the marriage. In re Marriage of Madson (1978), 180 Mont. 220, 224-225, 590 P.2d 110, 112. The property awarded Lucinda is not income producing nor does she make enough money through her employment to maintain her former standard of living. There is substantial evidence to support the District Court's decision.