Marriage of Rogers, In re, 86-292
| Decision Date | 19 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-292,86-292 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Ann ROGERS, Petitioner and Respondent, and Patrick Rogers, Respondent and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Johnson, Skakles & Kebe, Greg J. Skakles, Anaconda, for respondent and appellant.
Henningsen & Purcell, Mark A. Vucurovich, Butte, for petitioner and respondent.
The husband appeals the property distribution entered by the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Silver Bow County, in this dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part and remand for reconsideration in part.
The issues are:
1. Did the District Court err in: a) ordering the sale of the family residence and an equal division of the proceeds; b) awarding the wife all of the personal property which she requested; c) directing the husband to pay the wife the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500); and d) directing the husband to pay the wife an amount representing half of his interest in his retirement account?
2. Did the District Court err in adopting many of the wife's proposed findings and conclusions?
The parties were married in 1967. At the time of the marriage, the husband had a bachelor's degree and the wife had completed several years of college. The husband completed a master's degree during the marriage, and was a school principal in Deer Lodge earning $36,641 per year. The wife had completed an education degree during the marriage, and was employed as a teacher in Butte. She was earning $1,314 per month. The court described her employment situation as "tenuous at best", because she was non-tenured and had limited experience. The parties have three teenage children, two boys and a girl.
The District Court heard testimony from both parties on their proposals for custody and property distribution. Custody of the two boys was awarded to the husband, and custody of the daughter was awarded to the wife. The husband was ordered to pay $250 per month for the support of the daughter.
The court awarded the wife all of the personal property she had requested. It directed the husband to pay her $375 as his share of the cost of high school tuition for the daughter. It also ordered him to pay the wife $4,500 as her share of an IDS account and motor home which had been sold during the parties' pre-dissolution separation. Further, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife one-half of the present value of his Teacher's Retirement Account. That payment of $11,205 was to be made within 60 days of the decree. The court awarded the husband the use and possession of the parties' home in Deer Lodge until the children in his custody reach the age of 18, when the house is to be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties.
Did the District Court err in: a) ordering the sale of the family residence and an equal division of the proceeds; b) awarding the wife all of the personal property which she requested; c) directing the husband to pay the wife the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500); and d) directing the husband to pay the wife an amount representing half of his interest in his retirement account?
These are all questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the District Court's distribution of property. In distributing marital property, a district court is guided by Sec. 40-4-202(1), MCA:
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; antenuptial agreement of the parties; 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....
This Court will not alter the lower court's distribution of marital property absent a clear abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Garst (Mont.1983), 669 P.2d 1063, 1067, 40 St.Rep. 1526, 1530.
The husband's first contention is that the District Court should not have ordered the family home sold after the children in his custody reach the age of majority. He argues that he would like to buy out the wife's interest in the house and to continue living in it himself, and that there is no reason not to allow him to do that.
At the dissolution hearing, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Barker, In re
...to do so when the husband did not express such a desire. Martens, 637 P.2d at 526. Joseph also refers us to In re Marriage of Rogers (1987), 226 Mont. 163, 734 P.2d 677. In Rogers, this Court ordered the sale of the family home and an equal division of the proceeds. Kristeen, in turn, refer......
-
Marriage of McLean, In re, 92-195
...ventures before the date of dissolution in 1979. Lippert, 627 P.2d at 1209. Instead, this case is more similar to In re Marriage of Rogers (1987), 226 Mont. 163, 734 P.2d 677, where the husband sold the family's mobile home and liquidated an IDS account which the husband claimed was necessa......
-
Marriage of Jakkola, In re, 94-126
...be required to pay his wife one-half that amount after the divorce. Such arrangements are not uncommon. In In re the Marriage of Rogers (1987), 226 Mont. 163, 734 P.2d 677, the husband liquidated approximately $9,000 of marital assets while he and his wife were separated. This court [T]he h......
-
Marriage of Sullivan, In re, 87-86
...error through its adoption of significant parts of the wife's proposed findings and conclusions. See In re the Marriage of Rogers (Mont.1987), 734 P.2d 677, 680, 44 St.Rep. 556, 560. The husband argues that the findings and conclusions do not specifically set forth the liabilities of the pa......