Marriage of Vinner

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: December 3, 1982
• Docket: 82-097
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 82-97

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F MONTANA F

I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F 174Y'HLEEN ANN V I N N E R ,

P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t ,

1bUIiRK KINSEY VIiJNER,

Respondent and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County of Y e l l o w s t o n e , The H o n o r a b l e Diane G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l o f Record:

For Appellant:

R a l p h L. H e r r i o t t , B i l l i n g s , Montana

For Respondent :

S a n d a l l & Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted on B r i e f s : O c t o b e r 1 4 , 1982

Decided: December 3 , 1 9 8 2

Filed : \-!LC f: 'lY8'h, ' Mr. Justice John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e Opinion of the Court.

R e s p o n d e n t w i f e commenced t h i s a c t i o n f o r a d e c r e e of d i s s o -

l u t i o n of marriage in the Thirteenth Judicial District, i n and

f o r t h e County of Y e l l o w s t o n e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d -

ings of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w on December 2 4 , 1981, and

f i n a l judgment and d e c r e e on J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1 9 8 2 . A p p e l l a n t husband

appeals from the District Court's judgment and decree.

The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a , o n J a n u a r y 2 ,

1973. The m a r r i a g e p r o d u c e d two children. The w i f e was a g e 28

a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and is employed i n t h e c u s t o m e r ser-

vice department of the B i l l i n g s Water D e p a r t m e n t . Wife earns

approximately $1,200 per month and takes home about $800 p e r

month. Wife a l s o h a s a o n e - s i x t h i n t e r e s t i n a f a m i l y farm which

y i e l d s h e r $1,500 income p e r y e a r . Husband was a g e 3 1 a t the

t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and i s employed a s a s a l e s p e r s o n a t C h a n t e l

Jewelers. Husband earns an average of $816.74 per month and

t a k e s home a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 6 6 9 . 8 0 p e r month.

The p a r t i e s a c c u m u l a t e d v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e

m a r r i a g e w h i c h was d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s upon t h e i r s e p a r a -

tion. The p a r t i e s a l s o p u r c h a s e d a home l o c a t e d a t 2 2 1 S u b u r b a n

Drive. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h e home h a s a p r e s e n t v a l u e of

$59,700. The home has a mortgage of $35,759, with monthly

payments of $348. A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s p u r c h a s e d t h e home i n March

1977, t h e y borrowed $2,500 from t h e l e n d i n g agency f i n a n c i n g t h e

home f o r a down p a y m e n t , $ 5 , 0 0 0 f r o m t h e Rimrock C r e d i t U n i o n f o r

t h e p u r c h a s e o f h o u s e h o l d g o o d s and $ 6 , 0 0 0 f r o m t h e S e c u r i t y Bank

for home improvements. In addition, they also borrowed money

f r o m w i f e ' s u n c l e on two o c c a s i o n s i n a t o t a l amount of $ 7 , 0 0 0 o f

which they had paid back $750 a t the time of hearing. The

D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h e n e t e q u i t y i n t h e home s h o u l d be awarded

60 p e r c e n t t o w i f e , 40 p e r c e n t to husband b u t t h a t it would n o t

be just or e q u i t a b l e t o s e l l t h e home and d i v i d e t h e p r o c e e d s . I n l i e u o f s a l e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found h u s b a n d ' s e q u i t y i n t h e h o u s e t o e q u a l $ 9 , 5 7 6 . 4 0 and o r d e r e d s u c h e q u i t y m u s t be c r e d i t e d

to husband's child support obligation at the r a t e of $200 p e r

month until husband's interest in the home is satisfied. In

a d d i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d husband to pay a n a d d i t i o n a l

$ 1 0 0 p e r month per c h i l d o r $ 2 0 0 p e r month to w i f e as c h i l d sup-

p o r t . When t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e home h a s b e e n s a t i s f i e d ,

h u s b a n d is t o p a y $ 2 0 0 p e r c h i l d per month or $ 4 0 0 p e r month to

w i f e as c h i l d s u p p o r t .

The D i s t r i c t Court ordered husband to a s s u m e $ 3 , 7 0 0 o f the

marital liabilities and wife to assume $7,250 o f the marital

liabilities. Husband appeals from the District Court's order

r e q u i r i n g h u s b a n d t o p a y $ 4 0 0 a month c h i l d s u p p o r t and to c r e d i t

$ 2 0 0 o f t h e t o t a l $ 4 0 0 a g a i n s t t h e $ 9 , 5 7 6 . 4 0 e q u i t y he h a s i n t h e

f a m i l y home.

The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s :

1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by

distributing the marital estate; 60 p e r c e n t to t h e w i f e and 4 0 p e r c e n t to t h e husband.

2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by

requiring the respondent husband to pay child support in an

amount in excess of what the facts show the ability of the

respondent to be, under all the circumstances and facts con-

cerning the financial ability of the respondent husband.

3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by

m a k i n g a n award o f c h i l d s u p p o r t to be p a i d o u t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t

husband's e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l r e a l p r o p e r t y b a s e d upon p r e s e n t

value without consideration of the facts of appreciation or

d e p r e c i a t i o n of t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y .

Husband f i r s t a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y and

exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n b y a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e e q u i t y of the

f a m i l y home, 6 0 p e r c e n t t o w i f e , 4 0 p e r c e n t to h u s b a n d . Husband

correctly cites s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), MCA, as t h e s t a t u t e which

g o v e r n s e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n of property i n a d i s s o l u t i o n pro-

ceeding. T h i s C o u r t h a s many times d e c i d e d t h i s i s s u e and d o e s n o t c h o o s e t o r e h a s h t h e same a r g u m e n t s i n t h i s case: " I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n , the reviewing court does not s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w is w h e t h e r t h e trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n r e s u l t i n g i n substantial injustice ." Bolich v. Bolich (19821, S t . R e p . 1-137;- Mont . .. - - - , 647 P.2d 8 4 4 , 39

Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p e a r s t o h a v e f o l l o w e d t h e s t a t u t o r y

c r i t e r i a s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. Husband h a s f a i l e d to s p e c i f i c a l l y address the i s s u e a s to a n y p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n why t h e 60 p e r c e n t - 40 p e r c e n t s p l i t is i n e q u i t a b l e o t h e r t h a n to

simply state that it is arbitrary and exceeds the bounds of reason. We find t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e District Court's holding. Wife was l e f t w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r p o r t i o n of the marital l i a b i l i t i e s and t h a t a l o n e would justify a disproportionate property division in t h i s case. We

affirm the District Court I s ruling on this issue.

Husband n e x t c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d its d i s c r e - t i o n by r e q u i r i n g him t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t i n e x c e s s of h u s b a n d ' s a b i l i t y to pay. S e c t i o n 40-4-204 g o v e r n s a n award o f c h i l d sup-

port. The s e c t i o n s t a t e s : " I n a p r o c e e d i n g f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e . . . , t h e c o u r t may o r d e r e i t h e r or b o t h p a r e n t s owing a d u t y o f s u p p o r t to a c h i l d t o p a y a n amount r e a s o n a b l e o r n e c e s s a r y f o r h i s support . . ., a f t e r considering a l l relevant f a c t o r s including :

" ( 2 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e c u s t o d i a l parent; "(3) t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h e c h i l d would h a v e e n j o y e d had the marriage not been dissolved;

" ( 5 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s and n e e d s of t h e noncustod i a l p a r e n t . "

Thus, t h e s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s c h i l d s u p p o r t depending on t h e f i n a n -

c i a l r e s o u r c e s of b o t h p a r e n t s , i n a n amount s u f f i c i e n t to p r o -

v i d e a s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g s i m i l a r to t h a t which t h e c h i l d would have enjoyed had the marriage continued. Here, the District

C o u r t s i m p l y made a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e husband is a b l e t o c o n t r i -

bute $400 p e r month for child support taking into account h i s

e q u i t y i n t h e home. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t make a f i n d i n g a s

to the amount necessary to support the children, nor did the

D i s t r i c t C o u r t make a f i n d i n g a s t o t h e amount t h e w i f e is a b l e

to contribute to the children's support. We remand to the

D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n

40-4-204, and e n t e r judgment a c c o r d i n g l y .

Husband l a s t l y argues the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by o r d e r i n g

h i s e q u i t y i n t h e f a m i l y home be c r e d i t e d a s c h i l d s u p p o r t a t t h e

r a t e of $200 p e r month u n t i l h i s equity is e x h a u s t e d . Husband

c l a i m s he s h o u l d be a b l e t o c o l l e c t i n t e r e s t on h i s e q u i t y o r a t

least be given some consideration in the event the property

a p p r e c i a t e s i n v a l u e b e f o r e h i s e q u i t y is s a t i s f i e d . Wife a r g u e s

t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t p r o v i d i n g f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t o u t of m a r i -

t a l assets is p e r m i s s i b l e and w i t h i n t h e power of the D i s t r i c t

Court. Wife c i t e s C r a b t r e e v. Crabtree (1982), - Mont . - I

6 5 1 P.2d 2 9 , 39 S t . R e p . 1 6 6 8 , a s a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of h e r con-

tention. However, i n -r a b t r e e C -- t h i s Court ruled marital assets

c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o r e t r o a c t i v e s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s due and owing a t

the t i m e of the decree. That is a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r

f r o m t h e c a s e a t hand. To s i m p l y award husband an e q u i t y i n t h e

house of $9,576.40 t o be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n

a t t h e r a t e of $200 a month u n t i l t h e e q u i t y h a s b e e n s a t i s f i e d

i s a r b i t r a r y and d o e s e x c e e d t h e bounds of r e a s o n . We appreciate

the District Court's concern t h a t the n e t equity i n the family

home may n o t j u s t i f y a s a l e and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t wife might

not be able to find a comparable residence with a comparable

monthly payment. However, if the District Court is going to

r e q u i r e husband t o a p p l y h i s home e q u i t y a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d sup-

port obligation, then the District Court must also credit

husband's ongoing p r i n c i p a l with i n t e r e s t computed a t a reason-

able rate. ---- Affirmed i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d &d rem3ded i n part.

I Justice W concur: e

?&9'iL. -4z7 --95z94 Chief Justice