Opinion ID: 885426
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to value marital assets

Text: ¶ 42 The lone meritorious assertion Virgil offers in the midst of his eight issues on appeal is whether the District Court erred by not assigning a value to certain identifiable marital assets. This Court has held that it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to fail to identify or describe the assets acquired during the marriage, or assign values to them, and [fail] to consider the contingent liabilities associated with those assets. In re Marriage of Smith (1994), 264 Mont. 306, 310-11, 871 P.2d 884, 887 (citing In re Marriage of Dirnberger (1989), 237 Mont. 398, 401-402, 773 P.2d 330, 332). In Dirnberger, this Court stated: Only after a finding of net worth can the trial court make an equitable apportionment. The District Court must make complete findings of fact, including assets and liabilities, from which can be established a net worth of the parties. . . . Additionally, [i]f the District Court's findings and conclusions do not reflect the net worth of the parties' marital assets at the time of their divorce, this Court on appeal cannot determine if the property was equitably divided. Dirnberger, 237 Mont. at 401, 773 P.2d at 332 (citations omitted). ¶ 43 Here, the District Court, in its conclusions of law, stated: [I]t is the intent of this Court to divide the marital estate equally. However, neither Petitioner or Respondent have supplied this Court with sufficient information in order to arrive at a value for the marital estate. The court then provided examples of this insufficiency which included the value of the Highway 48 property, other land acquisitions, and a precise figure for the medical bills and expenses associated with Barbara's cancer treatment. The court then suggested that Virgil and Barbara should have these marital assets and debts appraised, and divide the resulting value equally. The court then warned that: If the parties can not agree, the Court will order the appraisal with the costs of the appraisal to be divided equally between the parties. The Court would then divide the value of the marital estate equally. Finally, the court decreed that the parties are specifically ordered to follow the terms of this Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and to execute whatever documents are necessary to effectuate the terms of this Decree. ¶ 44 We conclude, therefore, that while the court did not determine a specific dollar amount in its final decree, the parties here, namely Virgil, simply did not follow the court's explicit instructions. Rather, Virgil chose to bring this appeal without first pursuing the court-recommended appraisals. Finding no errors thus far in the court's determinations, we remand this matter so that court can fulfill its promise: to do that which the parties are apparently incapable of doing themselves. ¶ 45 Affirmed and remanded. WILLIAM E. HUNT, Sr., W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, JIM REGNIER, and TERRY N. TRIEWEILER, JJ., concur.