Marriage of Anne and Benedict Thiel ( 2008 )

April 8 2008
DA 07-0274
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2008 MT 113N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
ANNE M. THIELEN,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
BENEDICT THIELEN,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Butte/Silver Bow, Cause No. DR 05-144,
Honorable John W. Whelan, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Kevin E. Vainio, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana
For Appellee:
Bernard J. Everett, Knight, Dahood, Everett & Sievers,
Anaconda, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 2, 2008
Decided: April 8, 2008
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in
this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 Benedict Thielen (“Ben”) appeals from the District Court’s final decree of
dissolution. Although Ben accepts certain provisions of the decree, he selectively
challenges the court’s authority to enter the decree insofar as it: (1) awarded Anne a
credit in the amount of $15,585.07 from the proceeds of the sale of the marital home as
reimbursement of Anne’s premarital money applied towards a down payment on the
home, (2) required Ben to be solely responsible for a portion of a loan secured by the
marital home because proceeds from the loan were used to pay Ben’s premarital child
support obligation, and (3) required Ben to reimburse Anne for one-half of the 2004 tax
refund.
¶3 Section 40-4-202(1), MCA, requires that the District Court “equitably apportion
between the parties the property and assets belonging to either or both . . . .” We review
a distribution of marital property for an abuse of discretion.
¶4 In the present matter, we have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section
1, Paragraph 3(d) of our Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, that provides for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us
2
that settled Montana law controls the outcome. The District Court did not abuse its
discretion in equitably apportioning the property and assets of the parties.
¶5 We affirm.
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
We concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ JIM RICE
3