Frank v. Frank
2019 MT 130
| Mont. | 2019Background
- Sonia and Brian Frank were married ~30 years; both were ~50 at dissolution in 2018. Hammer Nutrition (a business Brian led) and substantial real property and personal property comprised the marital estate.
- Sonia had been primarily a homemaker; she held a 50% ownership interest in Hammer Nutrition and had withdrawn >$800,000 from company accounts in 2015, prompting bank covenant fixes and restrictions on her company access.
- The District Court found Hammer Nutrition worth $5,910,000, credited Brian with a 10% premarital/inherited interest, valued the marital estate at ~$10.26M, awarded Hammer Nutrition to Brian, and ordered an equalization payment of $2,088,717 to Sonia.
- Sonia sought $50,000/month for life; the court found her expense claims unreasonable and instead awarded maintenance $15,000/month for three years, then $10,000/month for two years (total $780,000 over five years).
- Sonia appealed only the amount and duration of the maintenance award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in amount/duration of maintenance | Sonia: court failed to properly weigh §40-4-203(2) factors and underestimated time/amount needed for employability and to maintain marital standard of living | Brian: court's findings were supported by evidence; maintenance was appropriate and not subject to reversal | Court affirmed: findings supported by substantial evidence and no abuse of discretion |
| Whether court adequately considered Sonia's financial resources | Sonia: court ignored that awarded real property carries upkeep costs and limited liquidity; rental/income potential was inadequately proven | Brian: distribution plus maintenance provided substantial assets and liquidity; Sonia received offsetting property and cash | Court: considered resources and reasonably concluded assets plus maintenance met Sonia's needs |
| Whether court adequately considered Sonia's employability and need for time/training | Sonia: age, lack of degree, long absence from labor market mean she needs more than five years to retrain and earn comparable income | Brian: Sonia is in good health, has skills, and received substantial assets to support transition | Court: considered age, marriage duration, employability, and concluded five years reasonable given asset distribution |
| Whether award was inequitable given Brian retained business income stream | Sonia: Hammer Nutrition generates income so Brian can pay longer; equalization payment insufficient to offset income advantage | Brian: post-distribution liquidity and business risks (declining sales, low reserves) limit ability to pay more | Court: considered business risks and Brian’s cash constraints; no abuse of discretion in five-year award |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Haines, 311 Mont. 70, 53 P.3d 378 (2002) (standard for appellate review of maintenance findings)
- Patton v. Patton, 378 Mont. 22, 340 P.3d 1242 (2015) (definition of clearly erroneous factual findings)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 341 Mont. 227, 177 P.3d 474 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard in dissolution/property division)
- In re Marriage of Rudolf, 338 Mont. 226, 164 P.3d 907 (2007) (court need not make explicit findings on every statutory maintenance factor if record shows consideration)
- In re Funk, 363 Mont. 352, 270 P.3d 39 (2012) (treatment of premarital/inherited property in marital distribution)