Marriage of Davies, In re
| Decision Date | 20 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-205,93-205 |
| Citation | 266 Mont. 466,880 P.2d 1368,51 St.Rep. 929 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Mark D. DAVIES, Petitioner and Respondent, and Margaret M. Davies, Respondent and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Robert F. James, James, Gray & McCafferty, Great Falls, for appellant.
Mort Goldstein, Goldstein Law Firm, Havre, for respondent.
Jody McCormick and Cynthia Ford, Women's Law Caucus, University of MT School of Law, Missoula, for amicus curiae.
Appellant Margaret M. Davies appeals from a final judgment and decree entered April 2, 1993, in the Seventeenth Judicial District, Blaine County, dissolving her marriage to Mark D. Davies and dividing the marital estate.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Margaret raises the following issues:
1. Did the District Court err in dividing the marital estate, including the refusal to award Margaret a portion of the cash value of Mark's stock in two closely held family corporations?
2. Did the District Court err in discounting the values of stock in the closely held corporations?
3. Did the District Court err in its award of maintenance?
4. Did the District Court err in allowing Mark to call a vocational expert?
5. Did the District Court err in refusing to admit Exhibit DDD?
6. Did the District Court err in awarding Margaret her attorney fees without holding a separate hearing after the trial?
Margaret Davies and Mark Davies were married on June 26, 1970. There were two children born of the marriage, Jeni, age 21, and Ian, age 18. Both parties graduated from Montana State University in 1970. Mark received a degree in Agricultural Business and Margaret received a degree in Fine Arts. Following graduation, the parties married and moved to Mark's family ranching operation near Chinook.
The Davies ranching operation consists of two separate ranches, the Davies Ranch Company and the S BAR B Ranch. The Davies Ranch was acquired in 1950, and title was placed in the Davies Ranch Company, a Montana corporation incorporated on January 2, 1950. On January 10, 1950, the stockholders entered into a restrictive stock agreement which provided that there could be no transfer of stock except to other members of the Davies family. Counsel for the parties stipulated that the net value of the Davies Ranch is $1,530,150.
As of the date of the filing of the petition for divorce in 1991, there were 435 outstanding shares of Davies Ranch Corporation stock which were distributed as follows:
Joyce Y. Davies (Mark's mother) 184
Joyce Y. Davies for life with remainder to her four sons 115
Jack W. Davies 41
Mark D. Davies 25
Dan K. Davies 27
Mark D. Davies, as trustee for the benefit of Jeni and Ian 16
Mark's 25 shares were received by gift or inheritance during his marriage to Margaret. The court valued the stock at $3518 per share by dividing the net worth of the Davies Ranch ($1,530,150) by 435 outstanding shares. Using the formula set forth in the restrictive stock agreement, the court discounted the book value by 50 percent, resulting in a current value of $1759 per share. The court set the current value of Mark's shares at $43,975.
The S BAR B Ranch was acquired by the Davies family in 1963. It was incorporated as a Montana corporation on March 8, 1963. On March 9, 1963, the shareholders entered into a restrictive stock agreement restricting the sale or transfer of corporation stock to anyone outside of the immediate Davies family. Counsel for the parties stipulated that the net worth of the S BAR B Ranch is $4,104,532. As of the date of the filing of petition for divorce, there were 2024 outstanding shares of S BAR B Ranch stock which were distributed as follows:
Jack W. Davies 346.2
Mark D. Davies 346.2
Rick D. Davies 316.2
Dan K. Davies 326.2
Joyce K. Davies 131.2
Joyce K. Davies life estate remainder to her sons 548
The court valued the stock at $2028 per share by dividing the net value of the S BAR B Ranch ($4,104,532) by the 2024 outstanding shares. Applying the formula set forth in the restrictive stock agreement, the court discounted the book value by 50 percent for a current value of $1014 per share. Of Mark's 346.2 shares of S BAR B Ranch stock, 318.2 were acquired by gift or inheritance, and 18 were acquired by purchase. The court set the current value of Mark's shares at $332,795.
Mark is the president and general manager of the Davies Ranch Company and vice president of the S BAR B Ranch Company. He has written employment agreements which grant him broad powers to make purchases of machinery and livestock, to spend money for repairs, and to buy and sell cattle.
The parties separated in April 1990. On May 16, 1990, Mark filed a petition for dissolution. With each party represented by counsel, the matter was heard by the court. On April 2, 1993, the court entered its judgment and "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Divorce." The decree provides as follows:
(1) Include a provision for making payments previously set forth in these findings.
(2) Provide for maintenance to be paid to [Margaret] as follows:
(a) $2200 per month for thirty months beginning April 1, 1993.
(b) $1800 per month for thirty months beginning April 1, 1995.
(c) $1400 per month for thirty months beginning March 1, 1998.
(3) [Margaret] is now included on Mark's health insurance policy. Mark shall keep her on that policy as long as possible, and shall make arrangements for equal health coverage on another policy for her when the present one expires, so far as she is concerned. Mark shall pay the premiums therefor, so that she has health insurance coverage for a period up to at least April 1, 1995.
(4) I have recommended in my Findings that [Margaret] should obtain a complete medical examination, a complete physical and mental examination. If she elects to do this, Mark shall pay the cost of this additional treatment not covered by insurance, up to $3500.
(5) If the examination recommends further treatment or counseling, Mark shall pay the cost of this additional treatment, not covered by insurance up to $2500.
(6) I have recommended that following the physical and mental examinations and treatment, that Margaret should submit to an examination by a qualified career guidance person to suggest the career to which she is most likely to achieve success. Mark shall cover up to $500 of the cost of this.
(7) If it is recommended by the guidance counselor that Margaret shall enroll in some qualified school so that she can receive the training necessary to qualify her for the employment, Mark shall pay up to $1500 of such training.
Did the District Court err in dividing the marital estate, including the refusal to award Margaret a portion of the cash value of Mark's stock in the closely held family corporations?
We note that the record discloses minor errors in the figures submitted by Mark and incorporated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we remand for correction of these errors.
In distributing the marital estate, the court relied primarily on the proposed findings of fact and division of marital assets submitted by Mark. The court divided the marital assets into Categories A, B, C, and D. With the exception of some miscellaneous items listed in Category A, the assets listed in Categories A, B, and C are shares of stock in either the Davies Ranch Company or the S BAR B Ranch Company. The value of the stock as listed has been discounted 50 percent.
Category A lists property Mark owned before the marriage. Included in Category A are miscellaneous items valued at $1000 and 171 shares of stock in the S BAR B Ranch Company valued at $181,089.
Category B lists property gifted to or inherited by Mark during the marriage. Included in Category B are 25 shares of Davies Ranch Company stock valued at $44,750, 157.2 shares of S BAR B Ranch stock valued at $166,471, and 6 shares of Davies Ranch Company stock held by Mark for his children valued at $21,199.
Category C lists speculative or contingency value property gifted to or inherited by Mark during the marriage. Mark has a contingency interest as one of four designated beneficiaries in a living trust made by his mother which is revocable at any time during her lifetime. Mark's contingency interest in the trust is funded with shares of Davies Ranch Company stock valued at $101,000. Mark's mother received a life estate through the estate distribution of her late husband. Her husband's estate provided that at her death, the four sons would receive in equal shares Davies Ranch Company and S BAR B Ranch Company stock. The court valued Mark's share at $106,483.
Category D consists of property acquired and debts accrued during the marriage by mutual effort. Margaret does not dispute the distribution of the Category D assets.
The total pre-tax value of the assets listed in Categories A, B, and C is $631,936. Of this amount, the court distributed $631,936 to Mark. Margaret attacks the court's distribution of these assets.
"Our review of marital property divisions is whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous." In re Marriage of Nordberg (1994), --- Mont. ----, ----, 877 P.2d 987, 991; In re Marriage of Maedje (1994), 263 Mont. 262, 265-67, 868 P.2d 580, 583 (citing In re Marriage of McLean/Fleury (1993), 257 Mont. 55, 61, 849 P.2d 1012, 1015). "If substantial credible evidence supports the court's findings and judgment, this Court will uphold the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albinger v. Harris
...Bar of Montana's Gender Fairness Steering Committee, No. 90-231 (1990) (Petition and Order); In re Marriage of Davies (1994), 266 Mont. 466, 480-82, 880 P.2d 1368, 1378 (Nelson, J., concurring). In its Petition to the Supreme Court, the State Bar of Montana's Gender Fairness Steering Commit......
-
In re Marriage of Bartsch
...the maintenance of the property, the court may include that property in the marital estate for distribution. In re Marriage of Davies, 266 Mont. 466, 474, 880 P.2d 1368, 1373 (1994) (citations omitted). Where both spouses have contributed to the preservation of gifted property, it may be in......
- In re S.B.
-
In re Marriage of Swanson
... ... Furthermore, she stated that providing all the evidence at trial to meet the seven factors would unnecessarily prolong every trial in which fees were requested. She relied upon In re Marriage of Davies (1994), 266 Mont. 466, 880 P.2d 1368, to assert that it would be an error to award attorney fees without holding a separate hearing after the trial. Rennee suggested that this appeal should be remanded for a hearing to make such determination of attorney fees awarded to her ... ...