MARRIAGE OF VINNER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-97 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F MONTANA F 1982 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 : Decided: Filed : \-!LC f: 'lY8'h, ' O c t o b e r 1 4 , 1982 December 3 , 1 9 8 2 Mr. Justice Court. John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e Opinion of the 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 f o r t h e County of Y e l l o w s t o n e . ings of fact and 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 - c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w on December 2 4 , 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 . appeals from i n and in the Thirteenth Judicial District, District the Court's 1981, and A p p e l l a n t husband 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 a t t h e t i m e of vice t h e h e a r i n g and department approximately two children. of the $1,200 is employed i n t h e c u s t o m e r ser- B i l l i n g s Water D e p a r t m e n t . per month Wife a l s o h a s a o n e - s i x t h month. y i e l d s h e r $1,500 t i m e of The w i f e was a g e 28 and takes home Wife about earns $800 p e r i n t e r e s t i n a f a m i l y farm which Husband was a g e 3 1 a t income p e r y e a r . the 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 payments of $348. a has mortgage of $35,759, with monthly 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 month until child support husband's obligation interest in at the the r a t e of is home $200 p e r 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 marital Court ordered liabilities liabilities. and Husband to a s s u m e $ 3 , 7 0 0 o f husband wife to appeals assume from the $7,250 o f the marital Court's District the 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 : Whether 1. the Court District distributing the marital estate; abused 60 p e r c e n t its discretion by 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 requiring amount the in respondent cerning 3. respondent excess to the District the of be, financial Whether the husband what under Court the all facts the ability District to abused pay its discretion support child show the Court the an ability circumstances of by and its of facts respondent abused in the con- husband. 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 value 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 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 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 . correctly cites s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), 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 ceeding. MCA, property as t h e the Husband s t a t u t e which i n a d i s s o l u t i o n pro- 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 Bolich v. Bolich substantial injustice (19821, Mont .. - - - , 647 P.2d 8 4 4 , 39 S t . R e p . 1-137;- . ." 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, s p e c i f i c a l l y address the - t h e 60 p e r c e n t simply state reason. We District Court's l a r g e r p o r t i o n of justify affirm 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 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 that find it is arbitrary and exceeds the bounds of 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 holding. was l e f t w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t l y Wife the marital l i a b i l i t i e s and a disproportionate property the Husband h a s f a i l e d to MCA. District Court I s t h a t a l o n e would division in t h i s case. ruling on this 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 We issue. 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. port. 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- 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 a f t e r considering a l l relevant support 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; 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; "(3) " ( 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, 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 bute $400 p e r month for child the amount District is a b l e t o c o n t r i - taking into account h i s 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 e q u i t y i n t h e home. to support the 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 to contribute to the children's support. remand We 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 some given consideration in the event the 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 . property 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 Wife c i t e s C r a b t r e e v. Court. 6 5 1 P.2d t h e power of Crabtree (1982), the D i s t r i c t Mont - . - I 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. 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 To s i m p l y award husband f r o m t h e c a s e a t hand. house of $9,576.40 That an e q u i t y i n t h e 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 i n the concern t h a t the n e t equity 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 not be monthly able to comparable if the t h a t wife might residence with District Court a comparable is going to 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 sup- obligation, husband's a However, payment. r e q u i r e husband port find family then the District ongoing p r i n c i p a l with Court must i n t e r e s t computed also 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. Justice credit I W concur: e ?&9'iL. -4z7 --95z94 Chief Justice
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.
