Marriage of Reese

No. 94-190
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1994
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
DOROTHY A. REESE,
Petitioner and Respondent,
and
MARVIN X. REESE,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis and Clark,
The Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Edmund F. Sheehy, Jr., Cannon & Sheehy,
Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Ann L. Smoyer, Attorney at Law, Helena,
Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 5, 1994
Decided: November 1, 1994
Filed:
Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a First Judicial District, Lewis and
Clark County, decision in a marriage dissolution action. We
affirm.
Dorothy A. Reese (Dorothy) and Marvin K. Reese (Marvin) were
married on October 14, 1983. Dorothy filed her petition for
dissolution on August 9, 1993. In her petition, Dorothy prayed for
an equitable distribution of marital property, maintenance in the
amount of $500 per month, attorney's fees, and that her maiden name
of Johnson be restored. In his responsive pleading, Marvin prayed
for an equitable distribution of marital property, that maintenance
be denied, and that each party pay their own attorney's fees.
On December 29, 1993, the District Court held a hearing on the
matter. On March 21, 1994, the court entered its findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and decree. The decree dissolved the parties'
marriage, divided the marital property, awarded Dorothy maintenance
in the amount of $275 per month until Dorothy remarries or the
court orders otherwise, restored Dorothy's maiden name of Johnson,
and ordered each party to pay their own attorney's fees.
The sole issue presented for review is whether the District
Court erred in distributing the marital property.
Our standard of review in marital property division cases is
whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly
erroneous. In re Marriage of Maedje (1994), 263 Mont. 262, 265-66,
868 P.2d 580, 583. When there is substantial credible evidence to
support the court's findings and judgment, this Court will not
2
alter the trial court's decision absent an abuse of discretion.
Marriaae of Maedie, 868 P.2d at 583.
The District Court's division of the marital property gave
Dorothy property worth $50,109.50 and Marvin property worth
$47,209.50. Marvin does not object to the division of personal
property, but takes issue with the division of the family home. By
stipulation of the parties, the family home was valued at between
$65,000 and $70,000. The court ordered the home sold and the
proceeds evenly divided or, in the alternative, one party may buy
out the other's interest for $33,750.
Section 40-4-202, MCA, governs the distribution of marital
property. In relevant part, it states:
In a proceeding for dissolution of a marriage, . . . the
court, without regard to marital misconduct, shall . . .
finally equitably apportion between the parties the
property and assets belonging to either or both, however
and whenever acquired and whether the title thereto is in
the name of the husband or wife or both. In making
apportionment, the court shall consider the duration of
the marriage and prior marriage of either party: the age,
health, station, occupation, amount and sources of
income, vocational skills, employability, estate,
liabilities, and needs of each of the parties; custodial
provisions: whether the apportionment is in lieu of or in
addition to maintenance; and the opportunity of each for
future acquisition of capital assets and income. The
court shall also consider the contribution or dissipation
of value of the respective estates and the contribution
of a spouse as a homemaker or to the family unit. . . .
Section 40-4-202(l), MCA. From our review of the courtls findings
of fact, it is apparent that the court sufficiently considered
these factors.
Marvin argues that the District Court erred because it did not
properly consider the source of the marital home. He contends that
3
he put more money into the purchase of the home, thus it is
inequitable to divide the home evenly. He cites In re Marriage of
Watson (1987), 227 Mont. 383, 739 P.2d 951, in support of his
argument. In Marriaae of Watson, most of the marital property at
issue had belonged solely to the wife, who brought that property
into the marriage with her. Marriase of Watson, 739 P.2d at 952.
In the present case, the marital home was purchased during the
marriage, thus Marriaae of Watson is inapplicable to the present
case. We hold that there is substantial evidence to support the
District Court's findings and judgment, and the court did not abuse
its discretion in its division of the marital property.
Affirmed.
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court
1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as
precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document
with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result
to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company.