Court Opinion

ID: 9509619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:48:01.793719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:51.113271
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRIEWEILER
specially concurring.
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the District Court for the reason that I conclude that the District Court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and its distribution of marital property was not an abuse of discretion. However, I do not subscribe to all of the reasons set forth in the majority opinion.
Specifically, I am unimpressed by the fact that Joseph lives with another woman to whom he pays rent, or that he occasionally provides financial assistance to her family. I fail to see how any of those facts are relevant to whether or not the marital estate was equitably distributed.
*119I conclude that it was equitable for Kristeen to receive the marital home, including its equity, because it was due solely to her efforts that the equity in the home was preserved by avoiding foreclosure. I consider this a valid consideration pursuant to § 40-4-202(1), MCA, which allows the district court to consider a spouse’s contribution to the estate when distributing the estate.
For this reason alone, and because there is no serious disagreement with the District Court’s distribution of the pension accumulated by Joseph during the couple’s marriage, I would affirm the District Court’s distribution of the marital estate.
Based on my conclusion that the estate was properly distributed and the additional evidence that following distribution Kristeen’s income was still less than her living expenses, I also agree that there was sufficient evidence to support the District Court’s conclusion that Kristeen was entitled to maintenance pursuant to § 40-4-203, MCA. I do not agree with all of the conditions placed on the continuation of that maintenance. However, those conditions have not been appealed.
Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.