In Re the Marriage of Clark, 2015 MT 263

Gordon and Nancy Clark married in 1996, separated in 2012; no children. Nancy had sold the river house and Nancy received proceeds; Gordon owned a ranch that went through two foreclosures and a partial 160‑acre sale.
District Court awarded the ranch (and its debt) to Gordon, valued the ranch at $2.45M and the marital estate at ≈$2.6M.
Court awarded Nancy ≈$955,298 (≈37% of estate) and ordered Gordon to pay a $650,000 equalization payment within 120 days.
If Gordon failed to pay in 120 days, the court ordered the ranch sold “as quickly as possible” and proceeds used to satisfy the payment; non‑cooperation could transfer title to Nancy for sale.
No tax consequences of sale were presented at trial. Gordon moved post‑trial to amend; the motion was denied and he appealed.

Issue	Clark (appellant) Argument	Clark (appellee) Argument	Held
1. Did the court abuse its discretion by ordering an up‑front $650,000 equalization within 120 days or forced sale?	Immediate payment/order to sell is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.	Court’s timeline and sale threat were justified by Gordon’s noncooperation, missed payments, foreclosures, and bankruptcy risk.	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion given facts (lack of cooperation, risk of dissipation).
2. Did the court abuse discretion by failing to consider tax liabilities of selling the ranch?	Court failed to account for concrete and immediate tax consequences of an enforced sale.	Tax consequences were speculative and not shown at trial; Gordon waived (no trial evidence).	Reversed and remanded — court abused discretion by not considering tax liabilities because the decree made a taxable sale reasonably concrete and immediate.
3. Did the court err in valuing the ranch at $2.45M?	Valuation not supported; court’s adjustments arbitrary.	Valuation falls between experts and is supported by comparables and Gordon’s own sale expectations.	Affirmed — valuation supported by substantial evidence and credibility determinations.
4. Procedural: Did Gordon waive tax argument by failing to present tax evidence at trial?	Post‑trial motion preserved the issue; unusual circumstances excused waiver.	No trial evidence; thus waived.	Gordon did not waive; issue was raised post‑trial and remanded for tax consideration.

In re Marriage of Thorner, 190 P.3d 1063 (Mont. 2008) (tax consequences must be considered when distribution triggers a concrete and immediate tax liability)
In re Marriage of Schwartz, 308 P.3d 949 (Mont. 2013) (immediate awards exceeding liquid assets are disfavored; sale is last resort)
Westland v. Westland, 848 P.2d 492 (Mont. 1993) (up‑front payment may be appropriate where future payments are unsecured and payor might dissipate assets)
In re Marriage of Beck, 631 P.2d 282 (Mont. 1981) (court must consider tax liabilities where a distribution creates a concrete, immediate tax obligation)
In re Marriage of Taylor, 848 P.2d 478 (Mont. 1993) (failure to introduce evidence of concrete tax liability at trial may preclude reversal)
Turbes v. Turbes, 762 P.2d 237 (Mont. 1988) (tax consequences must be shown with adequate evidence; speculative claims are insufficient)
In re Marriage of Meeks, 915 P.2d 831 (Mont. 1996) (trial court may adopt any valuation reasonable in light of evidence)