Court Opinion

ID: 9528495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:39.279284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:56.189912
License: Public Domain

SILAK, Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur fully in all parts of this opinion except for Part II, in which I concur in the result only. I agree that this case must be remanded to the magistrate for reconsideration of the division of property upon an “equitable” basis. I write separately, however, to express my concerns regarding the implication that a magistrate need not make findings of fact regarding the value of community property items when making an unequal, but otherwise equitable, division of community property. Even if the lack of findings regarding the value of the community property technically does not constitute error, I believe the magistrate should be encouraged to make such findings on remand. I.C. § 32-712(l)(a) provides that,
[u]nless there are compelling reasons otherwise, there shall be a substantially equal division in value,- considering debts, between the spouses. [Emphasis added.]
Absent findings as to the value of items of community property, it cannot be determined whether a division of community property is equal or unequal, equitable or inequitable. If either of the Campbells subsequently appeal from the magistrate’s judgment on remand, this Court may be unable to resolve any community property issues without remanding again, specifically for findings as to the value of the items of community property.
In Donndelinger v. Donndelinger, 107 Idaho 431, 690 P.2d 366 (Ct.App.1984), the magistrate held that the division of community property should be substantially equal, and the husband appealed arguing that the result under the final decree was a substantially unequal division. We remanded for additional findings as to the property valuation, because we were unable to determine whether substantial equality had been achieved:
In Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 103 Idaho 217, 646 P.2d 988 (1982), our Supreme Court held that a lack of findings may be disregarded by an appellate court only if the record is clear and yields an obvious answer to the relevant factual question. Absent those circumstances, a failure to make findings of fact on material issues affecting the *407judgment requires the judgment to be set aside and the case remanded.
Donndelinger at 437, 690 P.2d at 372.4 We later cited this case in support of the proposition that findings as to value are necessary even where the magistrate finds compelling reasons for an unequal distribution of the community:
Although the trial court “must find the value of each material asset,” this requirement is “limited to assets and debts upon which the court has been furnished substantial and competent evidence of the value or amount.” Donndelinger, 107 Idaho at 437, [690] P.2d at 372.
Lang v. Lang, 109 Idaho 802, 805 n. 2, 711 P.2d 1322, 1325 n. 2 (Ct.App.1985).
Whether an appeal involves a challenge to an allegedly unequal division where substantially equal division was sought by the trial court, or it involves a challenge to a divorce decree seeking to implement an unequal division, the same reasoning should apply with regard to findings of fact by the trial court. Trial courts, when sitting as triers of fact, are required by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure to prepare findings:
In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action.
I.R.C.P. 52(a) (emphases added).
The need for findings cannot be limited to those situations where the magistrate intends to make a substantially equal division of community property, and I do not believe that was the intent of the cases cited by the majority. We recently summarized the proper procedure for magistrates to follow in distributing community property between the spouses:
Initially, the material assets of the parties must be identified. Then it must be determined what assets are separate property and what assets are community property. The separate property assets should be specifically noted and allocated to the proper spouse. The community property assets must be valued and distributed substantially equally unless the court finds compelling reasons otherwise. I.C. § 32-712. See Donndelinger v. Donndelinger, 107 Idaho 431, 690 P.2d 366 (Ct.App.1984).
Cummings v. Cummings, 115 Idaho 186, 191, 765 P.2d 697, 702 (Ct.App.1988).
There are also substantial policy reasons for trial courts to make findings of fact on all the material issues where the trial judge sits as the finder of fact:
Our holding is not intended merely to facilitate appellate review, although that is a worthy consideration. Specific findings also demonstrate to the parties that the trial court has examined their divorce case — one of the most important emotional and economic events in their lives — with due care and attention to the evidence. Most importantly, the requirement of explicit findings encourages a trial judge to rely upon objectively supportable grounds for his decision, and discourages subjective or attitude-influenced perceptions of the case. Without that objective basis, trial court fact-finding is, as Judge Jerome Prank once observed, a “soft spot in the administration of justice.” J. FRANK, COURTS ON TRIAL 74 (1950).
Donndelinger, 107 Idaho at 437, 690 P.2d at 372.
The cases discussed above indicate that the magistrate first must determine which material assets are community property. Then the magistrate must find the value of each material asset, if substantial and competent evidence of value has been presented to the court. Finally, the magistrate must distribute the community property *408substantially equally, absent a finding of compelling reasons to do otherwise.

. See also Simplot v. Simplot, 96 Idaho 239, 526 P.2d 844 (1974) (remanded for findings of fact as to the value of corporate stock owned by the community); Josephson v. Josephson, 115 Idaho 1142, 772 P.2d 1236 (Ct.App.1989) (remanded for findings of fact regarding the value of shares of common stock in a closely held corporation which were material assets of the community).