Marriage of Grommet
2017 MT 42N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Dean and Malinda Grommet cohabited from the early 1990s, married in 2000, separated in 2011, and litigated dissolution; trial occurred in December 2015 and decree was entered March 15, 2016.
- Dean owned substantial premarital real property (Grey Rocks Ranch in Wyoming) acquired with his sister; Malinda performed extensive unpaid labor improving and maintaining the Ranch and other properties and businesses.
- The Ranch was sold in 2006 for $8.5 million; proceeds funded purchases (notably the Whitefish home) and other ventures; many premarital assets were commingled during the relationship.
- After separation Dean invested large sums (including proceeds/coins) into a new business, Acutech, LLC; some marital gold coins were liquidated to pay interim support, business expenses, and household costs.
- The District Court included premarital assets in the marital estate, evaluated contributions under § 40-4-202, divided the estate equitably (awarding Acutech to Dean but giving Malinda other assets and an equalization payment), denied maintenance and attorney fees to Malinda, and valued/divided gold coins and receivables.
Issues
| Issue | Malinda's Argument | Dean's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusion of premarital property in marital estate | Premarital assets enhanced by Malinda’s labor and commingling should be included | Court should exclude premarital assets or limit their division | Court: premarital property properly included due to commingling and nonmonetary contributions; considered under §40‑4‑202 |
| Valuation timing for gold coins | Entitled to half the coins (and related proceeds) as part of equitable split | Court should not value coins at separation or otherwise double-count converted assets | Court upheld valuing coins at time of separation and awarding Malinda 50% of coins; Justice Baker dissented on double‑counting concern |
| Treatment of loans/Acutech receivable (funded by liquidated coins) | Receivable is marital asset; Malinda entitled to share | Dean argues credits/advances and timing should reduce Malinda’s share | Court treated Acutech and its receivables as marital assets and awarded Malinda portions; concurrence/dissent would remand for consistent valuation to avoid double‑counting |
| Maintenance and attorney fees | Requested maintenance and fees; argued distribution insufficient | Dean opposed maintenance/fees; cited equitable distribution | Court denied maintenance and attorney fees, finding property distribution adequate and neither party merited attorney‑fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Funk, 363 Mont. 352 (2012) (framework for equitable division of marital property)
- In re Marriage of Clark, 316 Mont. 327 (2003) (premarital contributions may be considered in property division)
- In re Stufft, 286 Mont. 239 (1997) (commingling premarital assets is a consideration in equitable division)
- Danelson v. Danelson, 253 Mont. 310 (1992) (recognition of commingling as relevant to division)
- Carle v. Steyh, 380 Mont. 48 (2015) (district court should determine net value of marital estate at or near dissolution)
- In re S.T., 341 Mont. 176 (2008) (standard for reviewing clearly erroneous findings)