In Re the Marriage of Lewton, 2012 MT 114

Dawn Lewton petitioned for separation in 2008, which was later converted to dissolution in 2009; trial occurred in 2010 in Silver Bow County.
Married since 1983 with four children; Evan was 17-18 at trial, later emancipated; Dawn was homemaker and partly aided businesses; John was a taxidermist with multiple businesses.
Court valued and distributed assets: Cardwell residence ($580,000) and related debt to Dawn; Fish Creek land ($298,000) to be sold and proceeds split; John received Capehorn Taxidermy, Capehorn Installations, Wildside Video, and Lewton Bronzes; Boss Automotive to be liquidated with proceeds split.
Whitehall rental property ($83,000) and Cardwell land ($15,000) awarded to John; firearms/tools assigned to John; various vehicles allocated between Dawn and John; debts allocated with language that parties are responsible for debts listed or not listed.
Fish Creek land and Boss Automotive to be sold; Dawn awarded $25,000 in attorney fees and John $26,000 in back child support during pendency; Dawn sought maintenance which the court declined; back child support of $26,000 awarded to Dawn for Evan.
The court acknowledged difficulty valuing certain businesses, but held John’s four businesses should go to John and declined to assign explicit net worth; the court concluded the property distribution was equitable given differing incomes and potential future earnings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court err by not finding net worth of the marital estate?	Lewton argues the court failed to determine net worth.	Lewton asserts the court should have complete net-worth findings.	No error; findings were sufficient to determine equity.
Was the marital estate equitably distributed?	Lewton contends distribution was inequitable due to asset valuation gaps.	Lewton argues court failed to value assets; asserted inequity.	Distribution was equitable under § 40-4-202, MCA.
Did the court err in awarding Dawn attorney fees?	Lewton claims fees were improper or unsupported by evidence.	Lewton argues fees should be limited or unused.	No abuse of discretion; award consistent with resources and conduct under §§ 40-4-110, 37-61-421, MCA.
Did the court err in awarding back child support to Dawn?	Lewton contends arrearage calculation or credits were incorrect.	Lewton challenges imputed income and health-insurance credits.	Award supported by substantial evidence; not an abuse of discretion.

In re Walls, 278 Mont. 413 (1996) (net worth need not be exact if findings show equitable distribution)
In re Funk, 2012 MT 14 (MT) (district court may distribute equitably without precise net-worth calculation)
In re Petition of Fenzau, 2002 MT 197 (MT) (findings sufficient to determine net worth despite unknown portions)
In re Hayes, 2002 MT 281 (MT) (net-worth determination not always mandatory when sale values uncertain)
In re Harkin, 2000 MT 105 (MT) (divisions must consider relevant statutory factors for equity)
In re Stevens, 2011 MT 106 (MT) (appearance of party conduct and discovery issues can affect fees/relief)
In re Haberkern, 2004 MT 29 (MT) (presumption in child-support determinations; district court’s discretion respected)
Caras v. Caras, 364 Mont. 32 (2012 MT) (attorney-fee awards must be based on financial resources and reasonableness)
In re Thorner, 2008 MT 270 (MT) (tax consequences of property distribution borne by marital estate)