Marriage of Vinner

No. 82-97

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F MONTANA F

I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F 174Y'HLEEN ANN V I N N E R ,

P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , 1bUIiRK KINSEY VIiJNER,

Respondent and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County of Y e l l o w s t o n e , The H o n o r a b l e Diane G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l o f Record:

For Appellant:

R a l p h L. H e r r i o t t , B i l l i n g s , Montana

For Respondent :

S a n d a l l & Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted on B r i e f s : O c t o b e r 1 4 , 1982

Decided: December 3 , 1 9 8 2

Filed : \-!LC f: 'lY8'h, '

Mr. Justice John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e Opinion of the Court.

R e s p o n d e n t w i f e commenced t h i s a c t i o n f o r a d e c r e e of d i s s o -l u t i o n of marriage in the Thirteenth Judicial District, i n and f o r t h e County of Y e l l o w s t o n e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d -ings of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w on December 2 4 , 1981, and f i n a l judgment and d e c r e e on J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1 9 8 2 . A p p e l l a n t husband appeals from the District Court's judgment and decree.

The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a , o n J a n u a r y 2 , 1973. The m a r r i a g e p r o d u c e d two children. The w i f e was a g e 28 a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and is employed i n t h e c u s t o m e r service department of the B i l l i n g s Water D e p a r t m e n t . Wife earns approximately $1,200 per month and takes home about $800 p e r month. Wife a l s o h a s a o n e - s i x t h i n t e r e s t i n a f a m i l y farm which y i e l d s h e r $1,500 income p e r y e a r . Husband was a g e 3 1 a t the t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and i s employed a s a s a l e s p e r s o n a t C h a n t e l Jewelers. Husband earns an average of $816.74 per month and t a k e s home a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 6 6 9 . 8 0 p e r month.

The p a r t i e s a c c u m u l a t e d v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e w h i c h was d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s upon t h e i r s e p a r a -tion. The p a r t i e s a l s o p u r c h a s e d a home l o c a t e d a t 2 2 1 S u b u r b a n Drive. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h e home h a s a p r e s e n t v a l u e of $59,700. The home has a mortgage of $35,759, with monthly payments of $348. A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s p u r c h a s e d t h e home i n March 1977, t h e y borrowed $2,500 from t h e l e n d i n g agency f i n a n c i n g t h e home f o r a down p a y m e n t , $ 5 , 0 0 0 f r o m t h e Rimrock C r e d i t U n i o n f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f h o u s e h o l d g o o d s and $ 6 , 0 0 0 f r o m t h e S e c u r i t y Bank for home improvements. In addition, they also borrowed money f r o m w i f e ' s u n c l e on two o c c a s i o n s i n a t o t a l amount of $ 7 , 0 0 0 o f which they had paid back $750 a t the time of hearing. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h e n e t e q u i t y i n t h e home s h o u l d be awarded 60 p e r c e n t t o w i f e , 40 p e r c e n t to husband b u t t h a t it would n o t

be just or e q u i t a b l e t o s e l l t h e home and d i v i d e t h e p r o c e e d s . I n l i e u o f s a l e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found h u s b a n d ' s e q u i t y i n t h e

h o u s e t o e q u a l $ 9 , 5 7 6 . 4 0 and o r d e r e d s u c h e q u i t y m u s t be c r e d i t e d to husband's child support obligation at the r a t e of $200 p e r month until husband's interest in the home is satisfied. In a d d i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d husband to pay a n a d d i t i o n a l $ 1 0 0 p e r month per c h i l d o r $ 2 0 0 p e r month to w i f e as c h i l d supp o r t . When t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e home h a s b e e n s a t i s f i e d , h u s b a n d is t o p a y $ 2 0 0 p e r c h i l d per month or $ 4 0 0 p e r month to w i f e as c h i l d s u p p o r t .

The D i s t r i c t Court ordered husband to a s s u m e $ 3 , 7 0 0 o f the marital liabilities and wife to assume $7,250 o f the marital liabilities. Husband appeals from the District Court's order r e q u i r i n g h u s b a n d t o p a y $ 4 0 0 a month c h i l d s u p p o r t and to c r e d i t $ 2 0 0 o f t h e t o t a l $ 4 0 0 a g a i n s t t h e $ 9 , 5 7 6 . 4 0 e q u i t y he h a s i n t h e f a m i l y home.

The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s :

1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by

distributing the marital estate; 60 p e r c e n t to t h e w i f e and 4 0 p e r c e n t to t h e husband.

2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by requiring the respondent husband to pay child support in an amount in excess of what the facts show the ability of the respondent to be, under all the circumstances and facts concerning the financial ability of the respondent husband.

3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by m a k i n g a n award o f c h i l d s u p p o r t to be p a i d o u t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t husband's e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l r e a l p r o p e r t y b a s e d upon p r e s e n t value without consideration of the facts of appreciation or d e p r e c i a t i o n of t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y .

Husband f i r s t a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y and exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n b y a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e e q u i t y of the f a m i l y home, 6 0 p e r c e n t t o w i f e , 4 0 p e r c e n t to h u s b a n d . Husband correctly cites s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), MCA, as t h e s t a t u t e which g o v e r n s e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n of property i n a d i s s o l u t i o n proceeding. T h i s C o u r t h a s many times d e c i d e d t h i s i s s u e and d o e s

n o t c h o o s e t o r e h a s h t h e same a r g u m e n t s i n t h i s case: " I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n , the reviewing court does not s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w is w h e t h e r t h e trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n r e s u l t i n g i n substantial injustice ." Bolich v. Bolich (19821, S t . R e p . 1-137;- Mont . .. - - - , 647 P.2d 8 4 4 , 39

Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p e a r s t o h a v e f o l l o w e d t h e s t a t u t o r y

c r i t e r i a s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. Husband h a s f a i l e d to s p e c i f i c a l l y address the i s s u e a s to a n y p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n why t h e 60 p e r c e n t - 40 p e r c e n t s p l i t is i n e q u i t a b l e o t h e r t h a n to

simply state that it is arbitrary and exceeds the bounds of reason. We find t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e District Court's holding. Wife was l e f t w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r p o r t i o n of the marital l i a b i l i t i e s and t h a t a l o n e would justify a disproportionate property division in t h i s case. We

affirm the District Court I s ruling on this issue.

Husband n e x t c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d its d i s c r e - t i o n by r e q u i r i n g him t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t i n e x c e s s of h u s b a n d ' s a b i l i t y to pay. S e c t i o n 40-4-204 g o v e r n s a n award o f c h i l d sup-

port. The s e c t i o n s t a t e s : " I n a p r o c e e d i n g f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e . . . , t h e c o u r t may o r d e r e i t h e r or b o t h p a r e n t s owing a d u t y o f s u p p o r t to a c h i l d t o p a y a n amount r e a s o n a b l e o r n e c e s s a r y f o r h i s support . . ., a f t e r considering a l l relevant f a c t o r s including :

" ( 2 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e c u s t o d i a l parent; "(3) t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h e c h i l d would h a v e e n j o y e d had the marriage not been dissolved;

" ( 5 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s and n e e d s of t h e noncustod i a l p a r e n t . "

Thus, t h e s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s c h i l d s u p p o r t depending on t h e f i n a n -c i a l r e s o u r c e s of b o t h p a r e n t s , i n a n amount s u f f i c i e n t to p r o -v i d e a s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g s i m i l a r to t h a t which t h e c h i l d would have enjoyed had the marriage continued. Here, the District C o u r t s i m p l y made a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e husband is a b l e t o c o n t r i -bute $400 p e r month for child support taking into account h i s e q u i t y i n t h e home. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t make a f i n d i n g a s to the amount necessary to support the children, nor did the D i s t r i c t C o u r t make a f i n d i n g a s t o t h e amount t h e w i f e is a b l e to contribute to the children's support. We remand to the D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-204, and e n t e r judgment a c c o r d i n g l y .

Husband l a s t l y argues the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by o r d e r i n g h i s e q u i t y i n t h e f a m i l y home be c r e d i t e d a s c h i l d s u p p o r t a t t h e r a t e of $200 p e r month u n t i l h i s equity is e x h a u s t e d . Husband c l a i m s he s h o u l d be a b l e t o c o l l e c t i n t e r e s t on h i s e q u i t y o r a t least be given some consideration in the event the property a p p r e c i a t e s i n v a l u e b e f o r e h i s e q u i t y is s a t i s f i e d . Wife a r g u e s t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t p r o v i d i n g f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t o u t of m a r i -t a l assets is p e r m i s s i b l e and w i t h i n t h e power of the D i s t r i c t Court. Wife c i t e s C r a b t r e e v. Crabtree (1982), - Mont . - I 6 5 1 P.2d 2 9 , 39 S t . R e p . 1 6 6 8 , a s a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of h e r con-

tention. However, i n -r a b t r e e C -- t h i s Court ruled marital assets

c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o r e t r o a c t i v e s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s due and owing a t the t i m e of the decree. That is a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r f r o m t h e c a s e a t hand. To s i m p l y award husband an e q u i t y i n t h e house of $9,576.40 t o be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t t h e r a t e of $200 a month u n t i l t h e e q u i t y h a s b e e n s a t i s f i e d i s a r b i t r a r y and d o e s e x c e e d t h e bounds of r e a s o n . We appreciate the District Court's concern t h a t the n e t equity i n the family home may n o t j u s t i f y a s a l e and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t wife might not be able to find a comparable residence with a comparable monthly payment. However, if the District Court is going to r e q u i r e husband t o a p p l y h i s home e q u i t y a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d support obligation, then the District Court must also credit husband's ongoing p r i n c i p a l with i n t e r e s t computed a t a reason-

able rate. ---- Affirmed i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d &d rem3ded i n part.

I Justice

W concur: e

?&9'iL. -4z7 --95z94 Chief Justice