Marriage of Cooper, In re

Decision Date25 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. 90-030,90-030
PartiesIn re the MARRIAGE OF Linda L. COOPER, Petitioner and Respondent, and Robert T. Cooper, Respondent and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

Brett C. Asselstine, Great Falls, for respondent and appellant.

Kenneth R. Olson, Great Falls, for petitioner and respondent.

BARZ, Justice.

Robert Cooper appeals from the decree of the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, dissolving his marriage to Linda Cooper and distributing marital assets. We affirm.

When the parties met in 1979, Robert was a Master Sergeant in the United States Army with a wife and three children living in Georgia. Robert had been in the service for approximately eighteen years at that time. Linda had two sons from a previous marriage. Robert and Linda resided together sporadically beginning in October of 1979. Upon his retirement from the military in November 1981, Robert returned to Georgia to attempt a reconciliation with his wife. This effort failed and Robert was divorced in June, 1983. Robert was ordered to pay his ex-wife child support of $200 per month per child until his oldest child attained majority and $200 per month alimony thereafter until her death or remarriage. Robert's ex-wife relinquished all claims to his military pension and Veterans Administration disability benefits in exchange for the balance of the marital assets.

The District Court found that:

[b]etween October of 1979 until ... [Robert] retired in November of 1981 the parties lived together in ... [Linda's] residence. She was the homemaker and her income provided the husband with many of his necessities, including a down payment to purchase a car, house payments to [Robert's] first wife in Georgia, direct payments of cash to him, car payments and payments on his VISA credit card Account ... During this time ... [Robert] was completing his last two years for his eligibility for his military retirement pension. During this period ... [Linda] made all the lease payments on the residence and paid all of the household expenses. [Robert's] contribution consisted of the purchase of some groceries.

The parties were married on December 30, 1983. No children were born of the marriage. The District Court determined the marital estate consisted of real and personal property with a value of $102,825.49. The District Court found Robert had dissipated a significant portion of the marital estate through gambling. At the time of trial, Linda's monthly net take-home pay was approximately $1,232.72 and she received $300 per month child support. Linda's monthly expenses were $1,519.44. Robert received his military pension of $800 per month and disability benefits of $133 per month in addition to his salary from K-Mart averaging approximately $20,000 per year. While the District Court made no specific finding regarding Robert's monthly income, it appears to have been roughly $1,900 per month. Robert's monthly expenses were $1,616.83. Robert will be entitled to pension benefits from K-Mart should he retire from his employment there.

The District Court awarded Linda assets with a value totalling $44,321.49 and debt totalling $42,002 for a net distribution of $2,319.49. Robert received assets with a value of $68,504 and indebtedness of $31,584 for a net distribution of $36,920. Linda received the family home and liability for the accompanying mortgage while Robert was required to retire the home improvement loan. Robert was also required to pay Linda $10,000 as part of the marital estate in lieu of maintenance or alimony. The value of Robert's military pension and disability benefits were included as marital assets although neither was distributed to Linda.

Robert raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Was the District Court's requirement that Robert pay the home improvement loan because he dissipated a portion of the marital estate an abuse of discretion?

2. Did the District Court err by failing to add Robert's payment of the home improvement loan to Linda's share of the marital assets?

3. Did the District Court properly include Robert's military pension and disability benefits as assets of the marital estate?

4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in ordering Robert to pay Linda $10,000 as part of the marital estate in lieu of maintenance or alimony?

We have reiterated the standard of review in dissolution cases many times: The district court has great latitude in distributing marital property and findings of fact and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Marriage of Strong v. Strong
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • July 6, 2000
    ... ... at 368, 862 P.2d at 1146 (limiting expressly In re Marriage of Cooper (1990), 243 Mont. 175, 793 P.2d 810, which held that military disability benefits may be included in a marital estate under Montana law) ...         ¶ 14 On the basis of the foregoing holdings, Brandy argues that both Mansell and Marriage of Murphy are factually distinguishable ... ...
  • In re Elder
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • April 21, 2020
  • Marriage of Castor, In re
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1991
    ... ...         Based upon Blume I would conclude that the District Court abused its discretion and vacate the default judgment ... --------------- ... 1 In Montana disability benefits may be included in the marital estate. In re Marriage of Cooper ... ...
  • Thompson v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1994
    ...In re Marriage of Smith, 84 Ill.App.3d 446, 455, 39 Ill.Dec. 905, 911, 405 N.E.2d 884, 890 (1980); In re Marriage of Cooper, 243 Mont. 175, 179, 793 P.2d 810, 812 (1990); Kruger v. Kruger, 73 N.J. 464, 472, 375 A.2d 659, 663 (1977) (military disability benefits marital property). The Maryla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • § 8.03 Disability Benefits
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 8 Miscellaneous Property Interests
    • Invalid date
    ...court in Dunn v. Dunn, 35 Ark. App. 89, 811 S.W.2d 336 (1991), also followed this approach. [307] See: Montana: In re Marriage of Cooper, 243 Mont. 175, 793 P.2d 810 (1990). Washington: In re Marriage of Brewer, 89 Wash. App. 425, 949 P.2d 404 (Wash. App. 1998). West Virginia: Conrad v. Con......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT