Kowis v. Kowis
Decision Date | 04 February 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-308,82-308 |
Citation | 202 Mont. 371,40 St.Rep. 149,658 P.2d 1084 |
Parties | In re the Marriage of Charles David KOWIS, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Gladys Sorenson KOWIS, Respondent and Respondent. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Kenneth R. Wilson, Miles City, for petitioner and appellant.
Brown & Huss, Miles City, for respondent and respondent.
Petitioner Charles Kowis appeals from the property settlement and maintenance provisions of a decree of dissolution of marriage entered in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court. Petitioner raises a single issue for review: Whether the District Court abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily in distributing the marital property and awarding respondent $400 per month maintenance. We affirm the District Court.
The parties were married in 1964, after residing together for ten years. Petitioner, age 57, has a ninth-grade education. He worked from 1951 to 1978 as a janitor and an unlicensed boilerman at the Veteran's Administration (V.A.) Hospital in Miles City. He was retired in 1978 due to his high blood pressure, and became eligible for lifetime disability retirement benefits, which, at the time of this action, amounted to $1,319 per month, subject to annual cost-of-living increases. Respondent, age 63, has an eighth-grade education, and has not been employed since 1964 when she worked in the kitchen of the V.A. Hospital in Miles City. She suffers from poor vision caused by cataracts, and cannot do heavy lifting. She is eligible for neither Social Security benefits nor V.A. retirement benefits. The Kowises had no children of the marriage and no debts at the time of the dissolution.
In 1964, before her formal marriage to petitioner, respondent received $19,324.49 in benefits following the death of her son from a previous marriage. She resigned her job at the V.A. Hospital and withdrew all of her V.A. retirement contributions in the amount of $1,804.33. Most of respondent's money was spent on remodeling the three-room Kowis home, which petitioner had bought for $2,800 some years earlier. The remodeling included the addition of a bedroom, patio, living room, bathroom, and fireplace. At the time of this action, the Kowis house had an appraised value of $39,900. Respondent (in 1964) also paid off $2,000 of petitioner's accumulated debts; she paid $1,600 still owing on the purchase price of the house; she purchased several thousand dollars worth of household furniture, a 1964 Rambler and several hundred silver dollars as an investment.
Respondent did not work outside the home during the 18 years of the marriage; petitioner supported the parties. When he was retired, petitioner was earning approximately $21,000 per year.
At the time of this dissolution, the Kowises were joint owners of two interest-bearing certificates of deposit (C.D.s), one in the amount of $24,170.71, one for $409.75. Each party had a small individual checking account. The marital property also included a V.A. Credit Union account worth $1,144.25, and a 1973 Matador. Respondent lived in the family home, and petitioner rented an apartment.
The District Court found the parties' monthly expenses to be:
Petitioner ----------- Rent $185.00 Food 150.00 Clothing 25.00 Laundry 10.00 Transportation and car expense 100.00 Medical and dental care 15.00 Recreation 100.00 Miscellaneous 50.00 -------------------------------------------- TOTAL $635.00 Respondent ----------- Taxes & insurance on home $ 87.50 Utilities 60.00 Food and household items 150.00 Clothing 25.00 Laundry 10.00 Transportation 100.00 Medical insurance 43.65 Medical and optical care 15.00 Recreation 20.00 -------------------------------------------- TOTAL $511.15 The court listed the marital assets House at 2511 Clark, Miles City $39,900.00 C.D. at First Security Bank 24,170.71 C.D. at First Security Bank 409.75 V.A. Credit Union 1,144.25 Household furniture and appliances 6,000.00 Petitioner's checking account 185.00 Respondent's checking account 159.00 -------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL $71,968.71
The District Court noted that the marital assets also included a 1973 Matador, 300 silver dollars, and petitioner's V.A. pension, but that no specific value had been established for these items. The value of the retirement benefits was not constant, although the amount of the present monthly payments was known. The court concluded:
Finally, the District Court awarded respondent maintenance of $400 per month, with cost-of-living increases proportionate to those in petitioner's V.A. retirement benefits, payable until respondent's remarriage or death.
Petitioner appeals, seeking either a reduction of maintenance or a redistribution of the marital property.
Petitioner argues that because his financial contribution to the marriage was far greater than respondent's, and because her contribution in the form of "housewifely duties" was negligible, the District Court's award of twice the marital assets plus $400 per month maintenance to respondent was an abuse of discretion.
We note first that the extent of respondent's contribution as a homemaker was contested. Respondent testified that, during the 18-year marriage, she cooked, cleaned house, washed clothes, and, in short, did "everything ... a housewife would be expected to do". Petitioner claimed he did the cooking and much of the cleaning. The District Court concluded that respondent made a contribution during her years as a homemaker, which assisted petitioner in pursuing his occupation. With the exception of the death benefits and V.A. benefits contributed by the respondent, and the improved family home, the major marital assets--petitioner's retirement benefits and the jointly-owned C.D.s--were derived from petitioner's employment at the V.A. Hospital.
In Cameron v. Cameron (1978) 179 Mont. 219, 227, 587 P.2d 939, 944, this Court stated:
We find there is sufficient evidence to support the District Court's factual determination concerning respondent's non-monetary contribution.
The standards governing review of a district court's property distribution and award of maintenance are well-settled in Montana. The District Court has far-reaching discretion in making property divisions. Torma v. Torma (1982) Mont., 645 P.2d 395, 399, 39 St.Rep. 839, 843; Zell v. Zell (1977) 174 Mont. 216, 220, 570 P.2d 33, 35.
The reviewing court does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Popp, In re, 83-180
... ... 2135, 2138; In re Marriage of Aanenson (1979), Mont. , 598 P.2d 1120, 1123, 36 St.Rep. 1525, 1528.' Kowis v. Kowis (1983), Mont., 658 P.2d 1084, 1087-88, 40 St.Rep. 149, 153." ... These standards still apply and govern our review of this ... ...
-
Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. v. Hildreth
... ... will not be overturned simply because [it] relied upon proposed findings and conclusions submitted by counsel." In re the Marriage of Kowis (Mont.1983), 658 P.2d 1084, 40 St.Rep. 149. Consequently, we find no error in the District Court's adoption of the Coalition's findings of fact and ... ...
-
Marriage of Hagemo, In re
... ... simply because the court relied upon proposed findings and conclusions submitted by counsel ... [230 Mont. 261] Kowis v. Kowis (1983), 202 Mont. 371, 379, 658 P.2d 1084, 1088. Error occurs when the court relies on one party's proposed findings instead of its own ... ...
-
Parenteau v. Parenteau
... ... Kowis v. Kowis (1983), Mont., 658 P.2d 1084, 1088, 40 St.Rep. 149, 154; In re Marriage of Hunter (1982), Mont., 639 P.2d 489, 495, 39 St.Rep. 59, 67; In ... ...