Opinion ID: 884035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Was the District Court's division of the marital property in this case clearly erroneous?

Text: Linda alleges numerous other errors in the District Court's division of the marital estate. She disputes the allocation of innumerable items of personal property, from art to farm and lawn equipment, from a $25 shop vac to $500 worth of canned, dried, and frozen food. We find nothing in the record that indicates that the District Court abused its discretion. District courts working in equity, must seek a fair distribution of marital property using reasonable judgment and relying on common sense. In re Marriage of Kimm (1993), 260 Mont. 479, 483, 861 P.2d 165, 168 (citing In re Marriage of Danelson (1992), 253 Mont. 310, 833 P.2d 215). While Linda may not agree with how the District Court allotted the marital estate, she has not shown that the allocation was erroneous. As noted above, the District Court's provision for the payment of attorney fees did not comply with § 40-4-110, MCA, the statute which controls such awards. Accordingly, that portion of the order is reversed. In all other respects, the order of the District Court is affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion. TURNAGE, C.J., and GRAY and LEAPHART, JJ., concur.