MARRIAGE OF KIS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-208 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LOUIS M. KIS, Petitioner and Appellant, MARGE M. KIS, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hash, Jellison, O'Brien & Bartlett, Kalispell, Montana Kenneth E. O'Brien argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Keller & Gilmer, Kalispell, Montana Brenda Gilmer argued and Robert Keller argued, Kalispell, Montana Submitted: December 1, 1981 Decided: January 21, 1982 Filed: JAN 21 2982 J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. ~ p p e l l a n t ,~ o u i s M. Kis, a p p e a l s from t h e F i n d i n g s o f F a c t and C o n c l u s i o n s of Law e n t e r e d on J a n u a r y 8 , 1981, and Judgment e n t e r e d on J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1981, by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . T h i s judgment d i s t r i b u t e d t h e r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s dissolution. It was L o u i s and Marge K i s were m a r r i e d J u n e 30, 1960. a second m a r r i a g e f o r b o t h . A t t h e t i m e of the marriage, Marge K i s had two c h i l d r e n and L o u i s K i s had one c h i l d . c h i l d r e n were b o r n t o t h e m a r r i a g e . No A l l three children w e r e emancipated when t h e d i s s o l u t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s were i n s t i t u t e d . A t t h e t i m e of t h e m a r r i a g e , L o u i s K i s had been employed a s a warden f o r t h e Montana F i s h and Game Department f o r approximately s i x years. Marge K i s worked a s a bookkeeper. From 1960 t o 1965, L o u i s was t r a n s f e r r e d s e v e r a l t i m e s , f i n a l l y b e i n g permanently l o c a t e d i n K a l i s p e l l , Montana. With j o i n t p r o c e e d s , t h e p a r t i e s p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y on Foys Lake and c o n s t r u c t e d a home. They l a t e r p u r c h a s e d two a d d i t i o n a l l o t s on Foys Lake w i t h j o i n t p r o c e e d s . During t h e m a r r i a g e , b o t h p a r t i e s c o n t i n u e d t o work. L o u i s w a s promoted by t h e F i s h and Game Department t o c a p t a i n Warden i n c h a r g e of t h e Northwest Montana D i s t r i c t . t i m e of t r i a l , h i s s a l a r y was $19,400.00 p e r y e a r . A t the ~dditionally, h e b o u g h t , s o l d and t r a d e d a r t , cameras, guns and p h o t o g r a p h s , t h u s e a r n i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $3,000.00 p e r y e a r . Marge K i s w a s self-employed as a bookkeeper. I n addition, s h e i n v e s t e d and s p e c u l a t e d i n t h e p u r c h a s e of commercial property. A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , Marge K i s owned and m a i n t a i n e d solely,and i n partnership with other individuals, s e v e r a l rental properties. H e r a n n u a l income p r i o r t o t r i a l had r a n g e d from a low of $6,500.00 t o a h i g h of $13,500.00. On June 4 , 1976, L o u i s K i s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e marriage. H e a r i n g s i n t h e matter w e r e h e l d , and on O c t o b e r 1 0 , 1978, a p a r t i a l d e c r e e w a s e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s s o l v i n g t h e m a r r i a g e and making a n award o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , p u r s u a n t t o a n a g r e e m e n t r e a c h e d by the parties. T h i s a g r e e m e n t awarded L o u i s K i s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t o t a l i n g $17,917.50 and Marge K i s p r o p e r t y t o t a l i n g $10,693.73. S u b s e q u e n t l y , on J a n u a r y 8 , 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d F i n d i n g s o f F a c t and C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t L o u i s K i s was i n good h e a l t h and h i g h l y employable d u e t o h i s law e n f o r c e m e n t background and o t h e r income e a r n i n g v o c a t i o n s . The c o u r t a l s o f o u n d t h a t L o u i s K i s had a v e s t e d r i g h t t o h i s G a m e Warden r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s and f o u n d t h a t t h e c o s t o f a n a n n u i t y p r o v i d i n g s i m i l a r b e n e f i t s w a s $118,833.00. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found Marge K i s t o b e i n o n l y f a i r h e a l t h a s a r e s u l t o f s e v e r a l o p e r a t i o n s and a n i m p a i r m e n t t o h e r r i g h t arm. The c o u r t found t h a t M a r g e ' s h e a l t h a f f e c t e d h e r a b i l i t y t o r e p a i r and m a i n t a i n h e r r e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s , a s w e l l a s p e r f o r m bookkeeping f u n c t i o n s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t made s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l u e s o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t i e s owned by t h e p a r t i e s and d e t e r m i n e d t h e l i a b i l i t i e s owed by e a c h . The c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o u n d t h a t e a c h p a r t y ' s b u s i n e s s and j o b i n t e r e s t s w e r e , f o r t h e most p a r t , s e p a r a t e . bank a c c o u n t s . Each p a r t y had m a i n t a i n e d s e p a r a t e The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a l t h o u g h L o u i s K i s had c o - s i g n e d s e v e r a l bank n o t e s , s u c h a c t i o n was t a k e n a t t h e r e q u e s t of lending i n s t i t u t i o n s . he c o u r t found t h a t a t a l l t i m e s Marge K i s was i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s i n h e r b u s i n e s s t r a n s a c t i o n s and L o u i s K i s was n e v e r a p a r t n e r . Based on i t s f i n d i n g s t h e D i s t r i c t Court apportioned t h e m a r i t a l property a s follows: "A. The house and two l o t s on Foys Lake, 7 0 % t o t h e husband and 30% t o t h e w i f e . "B. The F i s h and Game P e n s i o n t o t h e husband. "C. A l l t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a s h e r e t o f o r e d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e F i n d i n g s of F a c t and by s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s a s t h e r e i n s e t forth. "D. The W h i t e f i s h A r m s Appartments t o t h e wife. "E. E a s t s i d e S u p e r e t t e ( p a r c e l K ) t o t h e wife. "F. The Pfrimmer House ( p a r c e l L ) t o t h e wife. "G. Western Acres d u p l e x ( p a r c e l G ) t o t h e wife. "H. The K . P . H . partnership t o t h e wife. " I . P r o c e e d s from t h e d e f a u l t d u p l e x i n W h i t e f i s h ( p a r c e l C ) l e s s t h e amount p a i d t o M r . O'Brien f o r A t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , t o t h e wife. " J . Any o t h e r b u s i n e s s p r o p e r t i e s t o t h e wife." A judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e above a p p o r t i o n m e n t was e n t e r e d on J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1981. I s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e : (1) Whether t h e Game Warden r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a r e a marital asset? (2) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e of t h e c o s t of a n a n n u i t y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e of t h e Game Warden r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s ? (3) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t worth of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ? (4) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ? (5) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by o r d e r i n g t h e Foys Lake r e s i d e n c e and l o t s s o l d u n l e s s a n a g r e e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d between t h e p a r t i e s ? Appellant, Louis K i s , f i r s t contends t h a t h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , stemming from h i s s e r v i c e w i t h t h e Montana F i s h and Game Department, s h o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a m a r i t a l L o u i s K i s r e l i e s m a i n l y on a s s e t f o r d i s s o l u t i o n purposes. t h e r e c e n t U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n , McCarty v . McCarty ( 1 9 8 1 ) , U.S. , 101 S.Ct. Montana s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 19-8-804, 2728, and a l s o MCA. I n McCarty, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e c i d e d t h a t m i l i t a r y r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s could n o t be considered community p r o p e r t y t o b e d i v i d e d e q u a l l y i n d i v o r c e p r o c e e d ings. T h i s d e c i s i o n was b a s e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t C a l i f o r n i a ' s community p r o p e r t y laws c o n f l i c t e d w i t h s p e c i f i c f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s regarding m i l i t a r y retirement benefits. T h e r e f o r e , f e d e r a l law preempted t h e s t a t e s t a t u t e s . A s t h e c a s e b e f o r e t h i s Court does n o t i n v o l v e a m i l i t a r y r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t , t h e McCarty d e c i s i o n i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g . S e c t i o n 19-8-805, MCA, r e l a t i n g t o Game Warden r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , provides: "Any money r e c e i v e d o r t o be p a i d a s a member's a n n u i t y , s t a t e annuity, o r r e t u r n of deductions o r t h e r i g h t of any of t h e s e s h a l l be exempt from any s t a t e o r m u n i c i p a l t a x and from l e v y , s a l e , g a r n i s h m e n t , a t t a c h m e n t , o r any o t h e r p r o c e s s w h a t s o e v e r and s h a l l b e u n a s s i g n a b l e e x c e p t a s s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d i n 19-8-806." Louis K i s contends t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e precludes i n c l u s i o n of h i s retirement b e n e f i t s a s a m a r i t a l a s s e t . Mr. Kis a s s e r t s t h a t such i n c l u s i o n would v i o l a t e t h e s t a t u t o r y exemption of r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s from process whatsoever." ". . . any o t h e r W c a n n o t c o n s t r u e t h i s exemption a s e x t e n d i n g t o e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of m a r i t a l e s t a t e s i n d i s s o l u t i o n proceedings. he p u r p o s e of t h i s p r o v i s i o n i s t o p r o t e c t a p e r s o n ' s future retirement security. I n c l u s i o n of s u c h b e n e f i t s f o r p u r p o s e s of e s t a b l i s h i n g a m a r i t a l e s t a t e i s mandated by s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, which r e q u i r e s a p p o r t i o n m e n t of a l l t h e p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s of p a r t i e s t o a d i s s o l u t i o n . W e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly included t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s of L o u i s K i s a s a m a r i t a l a s s e t of t h e parties. The a p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t even i f t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a r e a m a r i t a l a s s e t , t h e D i s t r i c t Court improperly v a l u e d t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s by a c c e p t i n g e v i d e n c e of t h e c o s t of a n a n n u i t y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e of t h e benefits. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c c e p t e d e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c o s t of a n a n n u i t y , p u r c h a s e d f o r a 51 y e a r o l d male, y i e l d i n g $10,000 p e r y e a r from and a f t e r t h e 55th b i r t h d a y . The c o s t w a s $118,833.00. Louis K i s a s s e r t e d a t t r i a l t h a t h i s o n l y a s s u r e d r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s were h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e r e t i r e m e n t fund. T h i s a s s e r t i o n i s premised upon t h e f a c t t h a t ~ o u i s , a t t i m e of t r i a l , was n o t y e t 55 y e a r s of a g e and had n o t accumulated 25 y e a r s of s e r v i c e ; t h e r e f o r e , h i s f u l l r e t i r e ment b e n e f i t s were n o t a s s u r e d . Evidence was i n t r o d u c e d e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t L o u i s K i s had c o n t r i b u t e d $14,436.00. W hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly accepted t h e e e v i d e n c e of t h e c o s t of a n a n n u i t y as e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e of t h e F i s h and Game r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . Present value i s t h e proper test. Value m i g h t be a f f e c t e d by t h e c o n t i n g e n c y of t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s f a i l i n g t o r e a c h t h e l e v e l s used by t h e c o u r t . A t t i m e of trial ~ o u i s is had n o t r e a c h e d 55 y e a r s of a g e ( r e t i r e m e n t a g e ) and had n o t s e r v e d t h e 25 y e a r s n e c e s s a r y f o r a r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t e q u a l t o t h e sum p r o j e c t e d by t h e t e s t i m o n y and a d o p t e d by the court. The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t L o u i s K i s would n o t r e a c h 55 y e a r s of a g e and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t he would n o t s e r v e 25 y e a r s c o u l d p r o p e r l y be c o n s i d e r e d i n a r r i v i n g a t v a l u e . However, no e v i d e n c e was o f f e r e d by L o u i s K i s showing what, i f a n y , e f f e c t such a c o n t i n g e n c y would have i n d i m i n i s h i n g t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e f i g u r e o f f e r e d by Marge K i s . The e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by Marge K i s c o u l d p r o p e r l y p r o v i d e a v a l i d b a s i s f o r the c o u r t ' s evaluation. Where s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e n t h a t f i n d i n g must be u p h e l d . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. Appellant, Louis K i s , contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e t r u e n e t worth of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e by f a i l i n g t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of v a l u e r e g a r d i n g certain properties. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Louis K i s a s s e r t s t h a t t h e c o u r t f a i l e d t o p l a c e a v a l u e on t h e Foys Lake r e s i d e n c e and l o t s , t h e p e n s i o n b e n e f i t s , and t h e K . P . H . i n t e r e s t o f Marge K i s . partnership H e further asserts that the court f a i l e d t o f i n d t h a t Marge K i s had made a $20,000 l o a n t o t h e K.P.H. p a r t n e r s h i p and was a l s o e n t i t l e d t o $9,000 a s a r e s u l t of a d e f a u l t on a c o n t r a c t f o r deed. A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s m a t t e r d i s c l o s e s t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t e i t h e r had s t i p u l a t e d v a l u a t i o n s a t i t s t d i s p o s a l o r made f i n d i n g s on t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t i e s . c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d on t h e e x i s t e n c e of a s s e t s a s w e l l a s t h e v a l u e of a l l a s s e t s . The ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t r e s o l v e d t h e s e c o n f l i c t s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v a l u e of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e and i n making a n a p p o r t i o n m e n t . From t h e r e c o r d we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s were c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e y m u s t be a f f i r m e d . Rule 52(a), L o u i s K i s c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s apportionment was i n e q u i t a b l e and unsupported by t h e record. This a r g u m e n t rests o n h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s w e r e i m p r o p e r l y o v e r v a l u e d a n d t h a t m a r i t a l assets w e r e ignored by t h e District C o u r t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e m a r i t a l estate. W e h a v e a l r e a d y d i s p o s e d of t h e s e a r g u m e n t s a n d need n o t d i s c u s s them a g a i n . U t i l i z i n g t h e s t i p u l a t e d v a l u e s a n d t h e f i n d i n g s made t h e District Court, t h e following apportionment f i g u r e s are e s t a b l i s h e d . Husband N e t Assets: Retirement security 7 0 % v a l u e o f f a m i l y home 7 0 % v a l u e of F o y s L a k e l o t s Personal property $118,833.00 74,463.00 21,000.00 17,917.50 Liabilities: VISA IRS (contingent) V a l l e y Bank n o t e TOTAL NET TO HUSBAND W i f e N e t Assets: Western A c r e s Duplex Eastside Superette Pfrimmer house Whitefish apartments 3 0 % v a l u e of f a m i l y home 3 0 % v a l u e of F o y s L a k e l o t s F i r s t Federal Savings Personal property KPH p a r t n e r s h i p $ 10,500.00 3,833.00 19,664.00 142,559.00 31,901.00 9,000.00 14,511.00 p l u s a c c r u e d interest 14,365.73 26,156.12 Liabilities: F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of W h i t e f i s h F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f W h i t e f i s h F i r s t S t a t e Bank of W h i t e f i s h F i r s t S t a t e Bank of W h i t e f i s h W h i t e f i s h C r e d i t Union Harry P i f e r , S r . Delila Pifer Ross Linsennan F i r s t Northwestern Bank Legal f e e s ( n o t involved i n t h i s action) VISA Master Charge 11,660.72 10,997.74 2,175.00 3,200.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,600.00 4,500.00 9,700.00 1,359.00 829.00 TOTAL NET TO WIFE I n r e v i e w i n g d i v i s i o n s of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , t h i s C o u r t must d e t e r m i n e o n l y ". . . whether i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e c o u r t acted a r b i t r a r i l y , unreasonably, o r without regard t o recognized p r i n c i p l e s r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l injustice." Balsam v . Balsam ( 1 9 7 9 ) , P.2d 652, 654, 36 St.Rep. 79, 82. Mont. valuation. proper. 589 H e r e t h e husband r e c e i v e d a n u n u s u a l l y l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . more t h a n one-half , However, of h i s a s s e t s r e s u l t from t h e a n n u i t y W have h e l d t h a t t h e a n n u i t y v a l u a t i o n was e Therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t Court a c t e d w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n apportioning the K i s marital e s t a t e . In fact t h e h u s b a n d ' s award was g e n e r o u s . A p p e l l a n t ' s l a s t i s s u e on a p p e a l c o n c e r n s t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r made by t h e D i s t r i c t Court: "a. That i n t h e event t h a t t h e P e t i t i o n e r ( L o u i s K i s ) make a r r a n g e m e n t s t o t r a n s f e r 30% of t h e v a l u e of t h e house and two l o t s on Foys Lake t o t h e Respondent (Marge K i s ) w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s of t h i s d a t e , s a t i s f a c t o r i l y t o h e r , t h e n such house and two l o t s s h a l l be s o l d a t p u b l i c s a l e , w i t h i n s i x t y days t h e r e a f t e r , and t h e p r o c e e d s , a f t e r d e d u c t i n g t h e e x p e n s e s of s a l e , s h a l l be d i v i d e d between t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e a f o r e s a i d proport i o n ; t h a t i f t h e p a r t i e s c a n a g r e e on a p r i v a t e s a l e p r i o r t o t h a t t i m e , t h e n it may be done; t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y may be t h e p u r c h a s e r a t t h e s a l e , whether it be p u b l i c or private. " W e have o f t e n s t a t e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s broad discretion i n ". . . d e v i s i n g methods t o accomplish a n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of property." I n r e M a r r i a g e of J o h n s r u d ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 Mont. 117, 123, 572 P.2d 902, 9 0 5 . H e r e the D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r e s a w problems a r i s i n g from j o i n t ownership and p r o v i d e d a r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e . W f i n d no a b u s e of e the court's discretion. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e Concur:

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.