MARRIAGE OF SCOTT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 95-003 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: DEANNA K. SCOTT Petitioner and Respondent, and GEORGE M. SCOTT, Respondent APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Larry W. Moran, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Wayne Jennings, For Bozeman, Montana Respondent: Richard Larson, Helena, Submitted Montana on Briefs: Decided: Filed: April August 6, 1995 24, 1995 Justice James C. Nelson delivered Respondent/Appellant, a judgment Gallatin entered County, Scott (Deanna) the George by the Opinion M. Scott Eighteenth dissolving his the the Court. (George), Judicial marriage and distributing of from District with marital appeals his court, wife estate. Deanna K. We remand. ISSUES George 1. greater raises the following Did the District contribution in issues on appeal: Court err in finding acquiring the marital 2. Did the District Court err in Deanna for lost rental income that could their period of separation? 3. Did post-separation 4. values the District payments Court while Did the District between its findings 6. receipts Did the District from the marital We have and the reviewed authorities supports the law respect with Court err estate? decline to address further consideration, Court the err record Court's to issues these to pay during in in excluding its Deanna's distribution and have that of and 6, 5, Issues further. the George's arguments substantial fact 3, royalty of considered findings 1, property of law? awarding the family home to in an escalating market? We conclude cited. District requiring George have been realized Court err in using different of fact and its conclusions Did the District Court err in rather than ordering its sale District made a err in allowing Deanna to recover not allowing George to do the same? 5. Deanna, 7. Did the pension benefits? that Deanna assets? evidence and conclusions and 2, 4, of accordingly, and we 7 require however. I. Did the District Court err in Deanna for lost rental income that could their period of separation? 2 requiring have been George realized to pay during II. Did the District between its findings III. George's Did the District pension benefits? values Court err in using different of fact and its conclusions Court err in its property of law? distribution of BACKGROUND George 1972. the and On August Eighteenth marriage its 1993. After 1991, Miles Deanna petitioned George. Following a bench fact judgment of fact on the and conclusions of the trial, law, in Court for to dissolve her the District law of the Montana, District County, parties' marriage City, the and conclusions arguments dissolving on October motions Court 22, to amend the District Court and distributing entered George and property. George worked during the form Frontier winter primarily months in engineered The major Company in Bozeman, Deanna which acquired airplane, various cars, George's pension, and miscellaneous Deanna the house of the lot the in Bozeman, Hyalite the including both Deanna bought out from marriage the in personal 3 included subdivision a 1986 items helped by Video sale of Honda, of of the the Hyalite property, a house in Bozeman, rifles, personal The District one half had owned miscellaneous Heights and George. in Bozeman, couple was Deanna royalties during in the to occasionally Scientific. a lot belonging but as a mechanic. receives by Frontier assets construction, he worked Scientific Consultants. games in Gallatin hearing of Deanna's married District, findings findings Lottery 23, were Judicial with filed its Deanna from Heights and three tools, property Court proceeds an awarded the sale subdivision lump sum payments for District Court her of maintaining cost lost her rental $4,500 interest required the from Court's marriage and distributing Additionally, house in $11,830 Bozeman, marital to equalize 26, for approximately George October the to Deanna and Service. entered the to Deanna property, Revenue judgment pension. to pay $5,582 marital the Internal District George's George the income to in appeals the 1994, dissolving the George realized to pay during Deanna their estate. DISCUSSION Did the District Court for lost rental income that period of separation? George the claims District Court's We review determine the In 864 P.2d the Court 1225, award court's of and 20, Barron (1978), 24, 177 Mont. substantial upon which findings and judgment, court's decision unless Maedje and without In 1174, this evidence Marriage of 938). the trial an abuse of Scoffield (1993), 4 Schultz not 262, of of will Court 263 Mont. In re Marriage District trial (1994), 583 the the has been of District supports there re Marriage 221, the (quoting 936, clearly 215, Marriage 1177 to "a recordation which re 580 P.Zd credible court's are 262 Mont. form law 164, property fact facts 597 P.2d 161, of support to Deanna. marital (1993), support." 183 Mont. of to income must determining lack rental of fact of (1979), (citing Zander The findings would when lost findings conclusions judgment evidence division Marriage Court's Thus, of $11,830 court's 1229. its was insufficient district re essential rested there a district if erroneous. of that err in requiring could have been 265-66, alter discretion. In 868 P.Zd 258 Mont. 337, 580, 852 P.2d 664). mind might of more Substantial accept than evidence as adequate a mere than 466, 472, 880 George $11,830 agree to that the support is had The clear lived in it. George had two nephews George and Deanna's for Deanna rent for During house. following A. It's at least in Inc. award of in rent. basis such rent. fact, the to base its both when neither pertaining house at to that examination, parties of them the house. some point during The nephews time We In that periods they she paid $200 a lived in answered rent: what property property yourself rents for in last the in the couple Yes. Q. Can you tell us what you believe had it been put on the rented for, 5 of evidence. evidentiary evidence of the direct of $11,830 separation. part its which the 266 Mont. Asarco based on bills less high. Q. Have you rented years? A. lived regarding you familiar area? very the of Deanna's questions Q. Are Bozeman period were consists 1080). evidence there paid v. issue contained that Barrett Deanna little and that house, (1994), a sufficient on the it Davies Court award a reasonable may be somewhat on a mere scintilla to transcript the of 1078, lacked very but (quoting Court not that a conclusion; District income owned month the conclusion Court conclusion. 1372 that District The record evidence ZOO, 799 P.2d rental its District 196, lost of 1368, claims for support In re Marriage P.2d 245 Mont. (1990), "evidence to scintilla a preponderance." is the house would have market for renting? the the A. This I think was the it only could easily discussion have rented relating to for value the $650 a month. of the house as a rental. Other It is it if both that the tell of for George the the they or paid that the the District Deanna lived in Moreover, we cannot for part of just piece or nephews Court for the full that the factored the they stated state of it them. is rent nephews' tell not two rent, have paid may she did for we that Deanna but for house time time. rent, $200 the house. separation, rent in the and Deanna's period. lived facts. George of that 'a of essential also $200 a month $200 devoid nephews of for is and nephews paid Notwithstanding whether part house record George period his nephews the George's what charged in that when part cannot lived above, appears least if the unclear While at than unclear into its decision. Since both when neither parties occupied extent that party may be one party period that the the $11,830 sufficient that regard. the the the the other have from renting the District lost evidence Court rental in Moreover, been may have to record there there to rent from for rented, half not nor periods it. renting one did were To the it, state the lost the of that time whether George house. income the other Court should and option party District house Deanna While to house, had the precluded Yet income. the both it, liable rental precluded owned had the Deanna, on which is it to base an insufficient 6 discretion did to award not have its decision record for in us to determine the how the District District Court income to Deanna. further evidence for award In this of such made its reconsideration law the then decision. of regard, and shall and conclusions not Court award District enter supporting its We remand Court appropriate its of lost to rental shall receive findings decision either to of fact award or rent. II Did the District between its findings George values to various claims the law George of District Court household law, exceeded items, construction the so that the claims the values that fees. Because we remand under correct discrepancy the and its Issue I., of of the we also and of and of wholesale, direct for District between fact. District except Court the fact conclusions when the District values the findings arose law to the in property conclusions in discrepancy conclusions equipment, assigned in values different findings assigned the assigned in its values Deanna's proceedings fact 1986 Honda, adopted attorney property of law? the including further Court that tools, cars, conclusions of Court err in using different of fact and its conclusions for further Court its to findings of law. III. Did the District pension benefits? George George's stated until and Deanna operating that after he his Court not 65th in stipulated engineer's is err eligible its distribution that pension to In birthday. 7 the benefits receive its of present is the value $14,365. pension conclusions George's of of George benefits law, the District Court estate and District included awarded Court to pay ten Deanna a lump held sum him to assign We have retirement child the v. pension in we Keedv, light of Court financial of Court of to a portion regard, of and conclusions law on the George in fails award benefits shall enter supporting its 8 of to In 445. of spouse 445. the District of show his how the a lump sum Therefore, its Deanna. appropriate decision at Deanna reconsideration pension 442, light to benefits. for of 689; paying that to view payout 813 P.2d record pension 685, immediate the Court Court of on a should in 813 P.2d no indication of George's George's the District an burden placed fact, made its District 52, of distribution. 669 P.2d Keedv, is spouse determination In her portion the there burden standing. District payment standing. the 47, award court property 85, than to Deanna. sum paying him rather benefits lump first ordered district requiring financial considered a 77, an unreasonable annual the benefits and other that case, improperly pension 249 Mont. The decree. on the placed instant of the 206 Mont. (1991), concluded his 1n the remand Keedy year, if place support, (1983), benefits of his marital three per pension appropriate, spousal of his is Glasser re Marriage of the in Court District would benefits. entry determining it pension to pay Deanna after in burden support, Glasser In that in interest a portion pension consider the benefits the George one year that allowing of percent be paid contends pension $6,113 ordered with George to Deanna further installments installment George's findings to either award In we of a this of fact award or not award a lump sum form of payment Remanded for Pursuant 1988 Internal precedent with further the Clerk West Publishing proceedings to Section Paragraph Rules, this be published of this consistent I, Operating and shall to Deanna. Court Company. 3 cc), decision by its filing and by a report with this opinion. Montana Supreme Court shall not be cited as a public of its result as document to the
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.
