Hutchins v. Hutchins, 430 P.3d 502

Michael and Michele Hutchins married in 1991 after signing a written premarital agreement (one week before the wedding); Michael listed substantial separate assets, Michele listed only personal items.
Michael accumulated significant earnings as a physician and a Nevada Public Employees Retirement System (Nevada PERS) pension; parties moved to Montana in 2006. Michele primarily served as homemaker and had limited earnings during the marriage.
Michele filed for dissolution in 2015 and sought a declaratory ruling that the premarital agreement was unenforceable; the District Court enforced the agreement and divided the marital estate after a bench trial.
The District Court found the parties financially separated in July 2014 and valued/distributed certain assets as of separation and others near dissolution; Nevada PERS was the largest asset (marital portion ~84.983%).
District Court awarded Michele 75% of the marital portion of Nevada PERS (time-rule method), apportioned other retirement/accounts, awarded life insurance arrangements, and distributed personal property (including dogs); Michele appealed enforcement of the premarital agreement, asset apportionment, valuation timing, and certain specific distributions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Michele)	Defendant's Argument (Michael)	Held
Enforceability of premarital agreement / choice of law	Premarital agreement unenforceable under applicable law (Montana)	Agreement should be enforced under its Nevada choice-of-law clause	Nevada law governs enforceability; premarital agreement is enforceable under Nevada UPAA
Voluntariness / disclosure / unconscionability of premarital agreement	Michele: signed under surprise/pressure, inadequate disclosure (no PERS listed), unconscionable	Michael: signed voluntarily, adequate "fair and reasonable" disclosure, single counsel permitted	Michele failed to prove involuntariness, unconscionability, or inadequate disclosure; enforcement affirmed under Nevada law
Equitable apportionment under §40-4-202, MCA	Michele: Court failed to account for credit-score harm, homemaker contributions, and her future needs	Michael: Court properly considered statutory factors and awarded offsets (not necessarily equal)	District Court properly considered §40-4-202 factors and did not abuse discretion in overall apportionment
Valuation timing (separation vs. dissolution)	Michele: Court erred valuing some assets at separation, causing Michael to retain post-separation gains	Michael: Court appropriately valued assets at separation where parties financially separated	Court affirmed discretion to value some assets at separation given unique circumstances (financial separation), and other assets at dissolution as equitable

Masters Group Int'l, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 380 Mont. 1 (Mont. 2015) (choice-of-law review de novo)
Gonzales-Alpizar v. Griffith, 317 P.3d 820 (Nev. 2014) (Nevada standard for premarital agreement validity under UPAA)
Fick v. Fick, 851 P.2d 445 (Nev. 1993) (disclosure requirement under Nevada UPAA; late disclosure defeats enforceability)
Rolfe v. Rolfe, 766 P.2d 223 (Mont. 1988) (Rolfe time-rule formula for dividing pension benefits)
In re Marriage of Thorner, 190 P.3d 1063 (Mont. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for valuation timing; separation may be valuation date in unique circumstances)
In re Marriage of Spawn, 269 P.3d 887 (Mont. 2011) (broad district court discretion in equitable apportionment under §40-4-202)
Deschamps v. Deschamps, 223 P.3d 324 (Mont. 2009) (standard for reviewing findings of fact and conclusions of law in property division)