In Re the Marriage of Chamberlin, 2011 MT 253

Ed and Trina married in August 2006 in Crestwell, Oregon, and separated in August 2009 with one child, G.S.C., born August 2007.
Ed purchased Townsend, Montana property in 2003 with a claimed $25,000 loan from his father, documented by an undated note; Ed did not make payments on the loan.
In 2007 the parties obtained a home equity loan and used proceeds to pay off Trina's car and student loans; in 2009 they refinanced their mortgage, consolidating debts in both names.
The District Court issued an October 21, 2010 dissolution decree: Ed received the Townsend property; Trina received her Ford Focus; a parenting plan awarded Trina primary custody of G.S.C.; Ed allegedly constrained Trina's parenting time.
Ed appealed the division of the marital estate, the parenting plan awarding primary custody to Trina, and the potential for attorney-fee awards to Trina.
The court upheld the District Court’s decisions, including property division and Trina’s primary custody, and rejected the argument to remand for attorney-fee awards beyond noting potential sanctions appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Equitable division of the marital estate	Chamberlin contends Townsend should be a marital liability/should credit his $25,000 loan.	Chamberlin argues the loan was informal and not a liability; property should be divided with consideration of pre-marital acquisition and contributions by Trina.	District Court did not abuse discretion; property division affirmed.
Primary parenting of the child, G.S.C.	Ed asserts he lived with G.S.C. more during separation and should be primary residential parent.	Trina alleges Ed used intimidation and restricted contact; best interests favored Trina as primary parent.	District Court’s primary custody to Trina supported by evidence and best interests.
Attorney fees and costs on appeal	Trina sought an award of attorney fees against Ed.	Ed’s appeal lacks abuse of discretion or good faith justification for fees; sanctions considered but not warranted as to fees on appeal.	No remand for fees; sanctions for frivolous appeal not warranted beyond potential general appellate sanctions.

In re Marriage of Kessler, 359 Mont. 419 (2011 MT 54) (applies abuse of discretion standard in property divisions)
Harper v. Harper, 994 P.2d 1 (1999 MT 321) (discretion in property distribution under § 40-4-402, MCA)
Bartsch v. Bartsch, 162 P.3d 72 (2007 MT 136) (presumption of correctness for district court property division)
Sian v. Kooyer, 239 P.3d 121 (2010 MT 178) (custody standards; abuse of discretion review in parenting plans)
In re Marriage of Rolf, 16 P.3d 345 (2000 MT 361) (evidence-based approach to valuing contributed property and premarital interests)
Cooper v. Glaser, 228 P.3d 443 (2010 MT 55) (frivolous appeal standards and good faith considerations)