Hollamon v. Hollamon, DA 17-0374

• Decision Date: 06 March 2018
• Docket Number: DA 17-0374
• Parties: In re The Marriage of: John S. HOLLAMON, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Beverly P. HOLLAMON, Respondent and Appellee.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

390 Mont. 320

413 P.3d 460

2018 MT 37

In re The Marriage of: John S. HOLLAMON, Petitioner and Appellant,

v.Beverly P. HOLLAMON, Respondent and Appellee.

DA 17-0374

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: February 14, 2018

Decided: March 6, 2018

For Appellant: P. Mars Scott, P, Mars Scott Law Offices; Missoula, Montana

For Appellee: Dennis E. Lind, Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind; Missoula, Montana

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 John Hollamon (John) appeals the May 26, 2017 order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, distributing the marital assets upon dissolution and awarding Beverly Hollamon (Beverly) maintenance. We affirm.

¶2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

1. Whether the District Court erred in awarding Beverly maintenance.

2. Whether the District Court erred in including John's investment accounts in calculating the division of the marital estate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 This case involves the dissolution of a long-term marriage. Beverly and John married in October 1995. John filed for dissolution in January 2014. The case was tried in June 2015 before Standing Master Brenda Desmond. Following a bench trial, the Standing Master issued a 34-page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree dissolving the marriage, distributing assets and awarding maintenance to Beverly. John then appealed the Standing Master's order to this Court. This Court dismissed John's appeal because he failed to comply with § 3-5-126(2), MCA, requiring him to first seek review by the District Court. John subsequently filed objections to the Standing Master's order with the District Court. Following review of the record and additional hearing, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order in May 2017. The District Court reduced the amount and duration of the maintenance award and affirmed the Standing Master's equitable division of the marital estate.

¶4 At the time of the dissolution, John was 64 years old and Beverly was 60 years old. They had been married nearly two decades. Prior to moving to Montana, the parties resided in South Carolina. When the parties resided in South Carolina, Beverly worked full-time in the banking industry earning approximately $49,000 per year plus benefits and John worked managing the family dairy farm and operating a small business. John had vacationed in Montana and dreamed of living here. To pursue this dream, John and Beverly moved to Montana in 2006. After relocating to Montana, Beverly was not able to secure employment at the earnings or benefit level she did prior to the move. Beverly obtained part-time employment in Granite County as a substitute teacher and deputy clerk of court. Additionally, John agreed to provide Beverly $1,000 per week to cover her expenses and in partial replacement of her previous income and benefits and Beverly agreed to continue to provide bookkeeping assistance for John's commodities business and billing for Hollamon Ranch, Inc. John paid Beverly these funds from 2006 through to the time of filing for dissolution. As determined by the Standing Master and confirmed by the District Court, by the time of dissolution, the parties had acquired significant property with a net marital estate of $5,747,302. The District Court adopted the Standing Master's findings with regard to an equitable distribution of the property awarding approximately 70% of the marital estate to John and 30% to Beverly.

¶5 The Standing Master included John's separate investment accounts when calculating the marital estate. John had three investment accounts with a balance of over $1,500,000. The Standing Master awarded John the investment accounts after specific distributions were made to Beverly. In Findings of Fact No. 118, the Standing Master stated, "all three accounts are held separately by John. John should retain these accounts as his separate accounts." The District Court affirmed, including John's investment accounts in the marital estate, and concluding "each party received property and cash proportionately to arrive at an equitable division of the marital estate."

¶6 The Standing Master awarded Beverly maintenance of $4,000 per month for a period of 60 months. Upon review of the Standing Master's order, the District Court reduced the maintenance award to Beverly to $3,000 per month for a period of 24 months. The District Court determined the Standing Master underestimated both Beverly's expenses and income. The District Court adjusted the maintenance based on Beverly's income generating property, her ability to remain in the workforce until retirement, and the fact she no longer had monthly vacation expenses as she had moved back to South Carolina.

John appeals the award of maintenance and the inclusion of his investment accounts in the calculation of the marital estate.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 In a case tried before a standing master, "we apply the same standard of review to an adopted master's report that we do to any other district court order." Patton v. Patton , 2015 MT 7, ¶ 17, 378 Mont. 22, 340 P.3d 1242. We review the district court's findings of fact in a dissolution proceeding to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Crilly , 2005 MT 311, ¶ 10, 329 Mont. 479, 124 P.3d 1151. Absent clearly erroneous findings, we will affirm a district court's division of property and award of maintenance unless we identify an abuse of discretion. Crilly , ¶ 10.

¶8 Section 40-4-202, MCA, governs the distribution of a marital estate. The factors listed in § 40-4-202, MCA, must be considered in the making of the district court's findings and conclusions and there must be competent evidence presented on the values of the property. In re Marriage of Funk , 2012 MT 14, ¶ 7, 363 Mont. 352, 270 P.3d 39. Section 40-4-202, MCA, vests the district court with broad discretion to apportion the marital estate in a manner equitable to each party under the circumstances. We review a district court's division of marital property to determine whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and the conclusions of law are correct. Absent clearly erroneous findings, we will affirm a district court's division of property and award of maintenance unless we identify an abuse of discretion. Funk , ¶ 6.

¶9 The standard of review for maintenance awards is whether the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. The amount and period of maintenance must be determined in accordance with § 40-4-203(2), MCA. In re Marriage of Haines , 2002 MT 182, ¶ 15, 311 Mont. 70, 53 P.3d 378.

DISCUSSION

¶10 1. Whether the District Court erred when it awarded Beverly maintenance.

¶11 John asserts the District Court erred in awarding Beverly maintenance when it did not first determine John's ability to pay maintenance. John further contends the District Court failed to consider whether John can financially meet his own needs before awarding Beverly maintenance.

¶12 The amount and period of maintenance must be determined in accordance with § 40-4-203(2), MCA. Haines , ¶ 15. Section 40-4-203(2), MCA, provides that when determining whether to grant a maintenance award the court must consider relevant factors including:

(a) the financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to that party, and the party's ability to meet the party's needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian;

(b) the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment;

(c) the standard of living established during the marriage;

(d) the duration of the marriage;

(e) the age and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; and

(f) the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet the spouse's own needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance.

Although a district court must consider each of the factors listed in § 40-4-203, MCA, the court need not make specific findings of fact regarding each factor, so long as this Court can determine the trial judge actually considered these factors. In re Marriage of Payer , 2005 MT 89, ¶ 12, 326 Mont. 459, 110 P.3d 460 (citations omitted).

¶13 We conclude substantial evidence supported the District Court's maintenance award. The Standing Master's findings, which were adopted by the District Court, along with the District Court's findings demonstrate the District Court fully and carefully considered the relevant factors pursuant to § 40-4-203, MCA. The Standing Master's order meticulously detailed the parties' ages, health conditions, duration of marriage, standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, the assets of the parties, and their equitable distribution between the parties. The Standing Master specifically addressed John's ability to meet his own needs while meeting the maintenance requirement. The Standing Master found, "During this proceeding, John had withdrawn funds from his investment accounts to make the Court-ordered support payments to pay Beverly.... [H]is income for purposes of income tax liability had been zero in most recent years, he testified that during the tax year 2013 his total income including capital gains, dividends, lease income and Social Security was $111,000. John has and continues to have a large cash flow." Further, the Standing Master found John has minimal monthly fixed expenses and minimal debt. In regard to Beverly, the Standing Master found that Beverly required maintenance for a reasonable amount of time to obtain employment, including training, if necessary.

¶14 The District Court's order reduced the amount and duration of maintenance awarded by the Standing Master, but did not alter the Standing Master's findings supporting an award of maintenance. The District Court considered and detailed...