In Re the Marriage of Richards, 2014 MT 213

Background

Mark and Dianna Richards married in 1984, separated in 2007, and Dianna filed for dissolution in 2008; a two-day trial occurred in 2013 and the District Court entered findings and a decree dissolving the marriage.
The marital estate consisted largely of farmland, farm equipment, livestock and personal property acquired over decades by leveraging inherited and gifted parcels and operating a family farm.
Two appraisals were stipulated: Carroll (real property) and Musser (equipment/crops); Mark also submitted bank financial statements and a final financial disclosure.
The District Court valued the estate at $3,509,560.86 (using the Carroll appraisal for real property), awarded most real property and income-producing assets to Mark so he could continue farming, and ordered Mark to pay Dianna $892,663 over 15 years; the court left Mark with about $190,000 more net worth.
On appeal Mark challenged the net-worth calculation (alleging double-counting, omitted debts, inclusion of stale cash, and equipment valuation errors) and the equitable distribution (credit for post-separation labor, treatment of gifted/inherited property, nondisclosure issues, and tax consequences).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mark)	Defendant's Argument (Dianna)	Held
Whether net worth calculation erred	Court double-counted improvements/equipment, relied on an outdated bank statement that listed $31,000 cash that no longer existed, and omitted certain debts (relative loan, Wells Fargo second mortgage)	Court reasonably used bank statement plus stipulated appraisals; Carroll appraisal adopted for real property; some items were stipulated	Court affirmed real property valuation but reversed and remanded for recalculation of equipment value and for findings on the $31,000 cash and omitted debts (relative loan and Wells Fargo mortgage)
Whether equipment was double-counted	Musser appraisal (2011) and Mark’s 2013 disclosure overlap; court improperly added post-separation equipment value twice	Dianna relied on the stipulated Musser appraisal and trial evidence	Court agreed equipment valuation appears mistaken; reversed and remanded to correct equipment valuation
Whether gifted/inherited properties should be excluded or apportioned differently	Rushwater (gift) and other inherited parcels should be treated separately and not fully subject to division or should be apportioned differently to reflect origin	After acquisition the gifted/inherited parcels were merged and used in the joint farming operation; equitable split appropriate given contributions	Court affirmed inclusion of gifted/inherited properties in marital estate and the equal distribution decision; no abuse of discretion
Whether the distribution abused discretion (post-separation labor, nondisclosure, tax consequences)	Mark sought credit for operating farm post-separation, claimed Dianna’s nondisclosure warranted awarding undisclosed assets to him, and alleged court failed to consider tax consequences of required asset sales	Court credited Mark indirectly by awarding him majority of productive assets and a larger share; trial record included testimony/items despite disclosure gaps; tax consequences speculative absent a forced sale	Court held district court did not abuse its discretion on these points; refused to grant extra credit for post-separation labor, declined to penalize nondisclosure given the record, and declined to address speculative tax consequences

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Funk, 270 P.3d 39 (Mont. 2012) (factors for equitable distribution and treatment of pre-acquired/gifted property)
Bock v. Smith, 107 P.3d 488 (Mont. 2005) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
In re Marriage of Crowley, 318 P.3d 1031 (Mont. 2014) (broad discretion in apportioning marital estate; net valuation not always mandatory)
In re Marriage of Lewton, 281 P.3d 181 (Mont. 2012) (sufficiency of findings to allow review of net worth and equity of distribution)
In re Marriage of Robinson, 888 P.2d 895 (Mont. 1994) (trial court free to adopt any reasonable supported valuation)
In re Marriage of Bartsch, 162 P.3d 72 (Mont. 2007) (findings must avoid leaving appellate court to speculate)
In re Marriage of Rudolf, 164 P.3d 907 (Mont. 2007) (court must consider entire estate including debts; reversal where accounting for assets/liabilities unclear)
In re Marriage of Foreman, 979 P.2d 193 (Mont. 1999) (trial courts given wide equitable discretion in distribution)
Kink v. Kink, 735 P.2d 311 (Mont. 1987) (appellate reluctance to reweigh complex property distributions)
In re Marriage of Haberkern, 85 P.3d 743 (Mont. 2004) (tax consequences must be concrete and immediate to require district court consideration)