In Re the Marriage of Williams, 2011 MT 63

Montana Supreme Court remanded Williams I for further proceedings on three issues and the district court issued an order on remand July 15, 2010.
Williams I directed recalculation of Bobby's child support using Bobby's tax data and B&J income, and to equitably reapportion the marital estate including Bobby's full B&J interest.
Jenny sought substitution of judge; the district court and on appeal the court held the remand did not require a new trial, allowing reconsideration on existing record.
On remand, the court declined to hear new evidence and issued its order based on the existing record, affecting child support and estate apportionment.
The district court kept Bobby's child support at $1,000/month and determined Jenny's B&J share to be $117,633, with an optional deferred payment plan until 2024/2025.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed substitution ruling, reversed the $1,000 child support determination, remanded for recalculation, and struck the deferred-payment arrangement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substitution of judge	Williams sought substitution under § 3-1-804(12).	Baugh properly refused; remand not for new trial.	Remand for further proceedings, not a new trial; substitution affirmed.
Inclusion of B&J income for child support	B&J income should be included per Williams I.	Income from B&J not used to increase living standard; omit.	Omission error reversed; include B&J income; recalculate under guidelines.
Adequacy of child support recalculation	Guidelines dictate use of actual income including B&J;	Existing record sufficient; no new evidence needed.	Recalculate per guidelines using actual income including B&J.
Deferred payment of Jenny's interest in B&J	Final, equitable apportionment must be immediate; no delay.	Future payout permitted to reflect non-liquid assets.	Postponing payment until 2024/2025 not compliant; strike deferred payment; require immediate judgment.
Appraisal date for marital estate	Appraisal should reflect present value; not delayed.	Limited exceptions justify earlier appraisal only in specified scenarios.	No justification for future appraisal; use present value; mandates immediate payment.

In re Marriage of Williams, 217 P.3d 67 (Mont. 2009) (remand for recalculation and reapportionment; not a new trial)
In re Marriage of Lopez, 841 P.2d 1125 (Mont. 1992) (appeal and appraisal timing considerations for finality)
In re Marriage of Wagner, 679 P.2d 753 (Mont. 1984) (earlier appraisal where warranted by wealth shifts pre-dissolution)
In re Marriage of Gebhardt, 783 P.2d 400 (Mont. 1989) (pre-dissolution wealth considerations for appraisal)
In re Marriage of Gerhart, 800 P.2d 698 (Mont. 1990) (ascertainable amount and interest accrual in post-judgment context)