MARRIAGE OF SCHULTZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-41 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA F 1980 I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF EADIE W. SCHULTZ, P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , SCHULTZ , HILBERT Respondent and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T 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 o f F e r g u s , The H o n o r a b l e LeRoy McKinnon, 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: W i l l i a m E . B e r g e r , Lewistown, Montana F o r Respondent : Leonard H. McKinney, Lewistown, Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: Ill! ? 5 WQT? -. . J u n e 1 9 , 1980 JU6- 2 5 19&I M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of F e r g u s , d i s s o l v i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , s e t t l i n g c u s t o d y and c h i l d s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s and d i v i d i n g t h e m a r i t a l property. The a p p e a l p r i n c i p a l l y c e n t e r s around t h e d i v i - s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . Respondent w i f e i s a t e a c h e r and a coach a t F e r g u s County High School, where s h e h a s t a u g h t s i n c e t h e f a l l of 1977. A p p e l l a n t husband i s a mechanic and maintenance man f o r t h e Montana S t a t e Highway Department where he h a s worked s i n c e J a n u a r y 1973. The p a r t i e s began t h e i r m a r r i e d l i f e w i t h o u t a s s e t s . E x c e p t f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e when s h e was f i n i s h i n g h e r c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n a t E a s t e r n Montana C o l l e g e , w i f e h a s worked w i t h husband i n h i s v a r i o u s o c c u p a t i o n s . Early i n t h e marriage t h e couple operated a s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n W i s c o n s i n , and w i f e worked w i t h husband i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f this station. A f t e r coming t o Montana, husband worked a s a mechanic i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, w h i l e w i f e f i n i s h e d h e r education. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e y moved t o Lewistown, Montana, where w i f e became a t e a c h e r and a coach and husband cont i n u e d t o work i n t h e f i e l d of mechanics, p r i o r t o g o i n g t o work f o r t h e Highway Department. The p a r t i e s purchased a home when t h e y moved t o Lewistown f o r which a downpayment was made from monies husband had o b t a i n e d from h i s f a m i l y . The p a r t i e s s o l d t h e house i n Lewistown and used t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e s a l e t o p u r c h a s e t e n and one-half o u t s i d e of town where t h e y e r e c t e d a Capp home. acres The Capp home c o s t $25,000 and was p u t i n p l a c e o v e r a basement t h a t had been dug and poured. The house w a s a s h e l l of a house when i t was p u t up i n 1975. Since t h a t time t h e family has c o n t i n u a l l y worked on t h e house t o f i n i s h i t and make i t totally livable. T h i s h a s t a k e n some t h r e e y e a r s of work by husband, w i f e and t h e i r two boys, and t h e f a m i l y ' s income h a s gone i n t o t h e p u r c h a s e of m a t e r i a l s , e t c . , t h i s house. t o complete The p r o p e r t y and house a r e t h e p r i n c i p a l a s s e t s of t h e f a m i l y and a r e t h e c e n t e r of t h i s d i s p u t e b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r and judgment d i r e c t e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t wife g e t t h i s property. Respondent t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y and p u t t h e v a l u e a t $80,000. Husband v a l u e d t h e p r o p e r t y a t between $85,000 and $100,000, and a s e p a r a t e a p p r a i s a l w a s made by a n FHA a p p r a i s e r who s e t a v a l u e of $85,000. In a d d i t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s o w n e d a l o t i n Wisconsin on a l a k e which was r e c r e a t i o n a l p r o p e r t y . The v a l u e of t h i s p r o p e r t y i s e s t i m a t e d between $10,000 and $15,000. There was a t t h e t i m e of t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n a $24,508 mortgage a g a i n s t t h e house and t e n a c r e s . The r e s t of t h e p r o p e r t y l i s t e d and d i v i d e d by t h e c o u r t was p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n c l u d i n g a u t o m o b i l e s , h o r s e s , farm equipment, and t o o l s , and t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y around t h e house, i n c l u d i n g a c o l l e c t i o n of guns e s t i m a t e d a t a v a l u e of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,500. According t o t h e n e t d i s t r i b u t i o n , r e s p o n d e n t w i f e r e c e i v e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 3 t o 79 p e r c e n t of t h e n e t w o r t h of t h e c o u p l e , and husband r e c e i v e d 21 t o 27 p e r c e n t . Appel- l a n t husband a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s t o t a l l y inequitable. The i s s u e b e f o r e u s i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t complied w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, i n making t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y of t h e m a r r i a g e i n a n e q u i t a b l e manner, o r whether t h e c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n making t h e property division. T h i s C o u r t h a s , s i n c e 1975 when t h e M a r r i a g e and Divorce A c t was p a s s e d , c o n s i d e r e d many c a s e s w i t h r e g a r d t o p r o p e r p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i n d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e c a s e s . W have e adopted c e r t a i n g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n a s mandated under s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. S e v e r a l c r i t e r i a s t a n d o u t a s mandates, f i r s t of which i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t make f i n d i n g s of f a c t from which t h e r e c a n be e s t a b l i s h e d a n e t w o r t h of t h e p a r t i e s . re M a r r i a g e of S c h u l t z ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1174, 36 St.Rep. , (1978) Mont. -, See I n 597 P.2d 1330; H e r r i n g v. H e r r i n g ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. 602 P.2d 1006, 36 St.Rep. 2052; V i v i a n v . V i v i a n - Mont. - 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359; Downs , v. Downs ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. - 592 P.2d 938, 36 St.Rep. , 577; I n re M a r r i a g e of Capener ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 437, 582 P.2d 326, 35 St.Rep. 1026; Kruse v . Kruse ( 1 9 7 8 ) , , - 586 P.2d 294, 35 St.Rep. (1978) - Mont. , 1502; I n r e M a r r i a g e of Brown 587 P.2d 361, 35 St.Rep. Robertson v . Robertson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont. 596 P.2d 205, 36 St.Rep. Herron ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. -, 1733; - 590 P.2d 113, , 35 S t - R e p . 1889; G r e n f e l l v . G r e n f e l l (1979) I , Mont. - Mont. 1100; I n r e ~ a r r i a g e f o 608 P.2d 97, 37 St.Rep. 387. The above c a s e s g e n e r a l l y h o l d t h a t t h e r e must be c o m p l e t e f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e assets and l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r v a l u e s f o r e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a n e t worth. T h i s C o u r t h a s a l l o w e d a f a i l u r e t o f i n d a n e t worth t o s t a n d o n l y where t h e r e h a s been a 50/50 s p l i t of t h e p r o p e r t y . See B a i l e y v . B a i l e y ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 36 St.Rep. Mont. 2162; Reese v. Reese ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 603 P.2d 259, - Mont. , 604 P.2d 326, 36 St.Rep. , 593 P.2d 4 1 , 2389; Kuntz v. Kuntz ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 36 St.Rep. - Mont. 662. H e r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o make f i n d i n g s e s t a b - l i s h i n g t h e n e t w o r t h of t h e p a r t i e s p r i o r t o d i v i d i n g t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and d i v i d i n g i t i n a n i n e q u i t a b l e manner w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s and i n h e r i tance necessitates a reversal. W e remand w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o a s c e r t a i n t h e n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s i n a r r i v i n g a t a p r o p e r d i v i s i o n of t h e same. W concur: e ief Justike

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.