Kessler v. Kessler
2011 MT 54
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Married since 1980; two adult children; William disabled in 2008 and Celest petitioned for dissolution in 2009.
- Guardian ad litem Colleen Kirven appointed due to William’s organic affective disorder; William later appeared pro se.
- Trial occurred May 28, 2010; Colleen accompanied William; William stated he would represent himself with Colleen’s husband present.
- CSRS disability benefit was the largest asset, with a present value around $860,201, and Celest sought half or a fair division.
- Court found the CSRS discharge could not be divided into pension and Social Security components; ordered a pro rata, equitable reallocation.
- Inheritance: William’s $253,744 inheritance was traced separately; court allocated it to William and divided remaining funds equally; William failed to provide post-trial balance evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pro se representation after guardian ad litem | Kessler argues he could not competently represent himself. | Celest contends issue not preserved; no error by court. | No error; GAL appointment did not require counsel. |
| Distribution of CSRS benefits | William life expectancy or illness should reduce CSRS value. | No evidence life expectancy reduced valuation; standard valuation allowed. | Court did not err in CSRS valuation or apportionment. |
| Appreciation on inherited property | Appreciation on inheritance should belong to William. | Court failed to account for traceable inheritance and balance evidence. | Court correctly divided accounts after subtracting traceable inheritance; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Bowman, 734 P.2d 197 (Mont. 1987) (rejected arbitrary life expectancy calculations in pension valuations)
- In re Marriage of Steinbeisser, 60 P.3d 441 (Mont. 2002) (tracing and attribution of appreciation in inherited property)
- In re Marriage of Grendy, 85 P.3d 788 (Mont. 2004) (allocation of appreciation where evidence exists to trace funds)
- In re Marriage of Rolfs, 699 P.2d 79 (Mont. 1985) (child custody context; no direct applicability here)
- In re T.C., 194 P.3d 653 (Mont. 2008) (preservation of objections for appeal; general rule on changing theory)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 217 P.3d 67 (Mont. 2009) (set of factors for marital property distribution; standard of review)