Marriage of Harr
2017 MT 167N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Daryl and Joan married in 2008; moved into a partly built home on a tract near Trego, Montana, in 2010. Daryl had substantial pre-marital wealth that declined after the 2008 recession.
- Major assets included the Trego property, a Sacramento home (sold at a loss), and a promissory note producing monthly payments that later were partially garnished. Parties also accrued credit card debt, second mortgage on Trego, and tax debt.
- District Court ordered temporary maintenance to Joan (~$1,600/month) and required Daryl to maintain mortgage, insurance, and taxes on the Trego property; later denied Daryl’s initial modification motion and found Joan entitled to temporary support.
- After trial, the court issued a dissolution decree 28 months later dividing marital property: it ordered sale of the Trego home, equal division of equity, and a cash equalization payment to Joan (~$125,000, of which ~$103,000 reflected Joan’s share of Trego equity). The court terminated temporary maintenance effective March 1, 2015.
- Daryl appealed, arguing Joan waived any interest in the Trego property, the court abused its discretion on temporary maintenance, the court erred in asset valuation, and the 28‑month delay tainted valuation and distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Joan) | Defendant's Argument (Daryl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Joan waive any marital interest in the Trego property? | Joan argued Trego was marital property and sought equitable share. | Daryl contended Joan expressly disclaimed interest during trial. | Court: No waiver; Joan did not expressly relinquish claim; court properly treated Trego as marital asset. |
| Was temporary maintenance properly awarded and denial of modification appropriate? | Joan: lacked sufficient property and recent work history justified temporary support. | Daryl: unable to afford support given changed finances and reduced income. | Court: No abuse of discretion granting temporary support and denying first modification; later terminated retroactive to 3/1/2015 once Joan could self-support. |
| Was the Trego property valuation and resulting equalization payment proper despite delay? | Joan relied on trial-time valuation used by district court. | Daryl argued delay and changed circumstances (foreclosure, liens) made trial‑time valuation improper. | Court: Abused discretion by valuing Trego at trial date given 28‑month delay and changed circumstances; remanded to reassess valuation and effect on distribution. |
| Did the decree adequately apportion all assets and list values for nonmarital property? | Joan accepted court’s allocation but urged recognition of Trego as marital. | Daryl faulted court’s valuation method and lack of listed values for assets deemed nonmarital. | Court: Remanded because district court did not list values for excluded assets and used outdated valuation for primary asset, making equitable apportionment unclear. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Funk, 363 Mont. 352, 270 P.3d 39 (Mont. 2012) (district courts have broad discretion to equitably apportion marital estate; all property is subject to apportionment)
- In re Marriage of Krause, 200 Mont. 368, 654 P.2d 963 (Mont. 1982) (preferable to value property at time of distribution; use present fair market value)
- In re Marriage of Bartsch, 321 Mont. 28, 88 P.3d 1263 (Mont. 2004) (valuation principles and timing in dissolution proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Pospisil, 299 Mont. 527, 1 P.3d 364 (Mont. 2000) (valuation at distribution preferred; district court must account for post‑trial changes)
- In re Marriage of Crowley, 374 Mont. 48, 318 P.3d 1031 (Mont. 2014) (division of marital estate includes consideration of debts when apportioning property)