Marriage of Jackson
2017 MT 78N
Mont.2017Background
- Gregory and Cathryn (Kit) Jackson married in 1991; no children from the marriage. Greg brought a PERS retirement into the marriage; both later helped create hospice businesses that grew valuable.
- The couple co-founded Hospice for Utah (HFU); Kit performed primary clinical and managerial work and was the driving force behind HFU’s and later Hospice of Missoula (HOM)’s success; Greg’s contributions were largely supportive and ancillary.
- HFU sold portions to employees via an ESOP (two 31% sales), leaving the Jacksons a 38% minority interest; substantial sale offers were previously declined.
- Greg filed for dissolution in 2009. A Standing Master issued proposed findings; the District Court rejected portions of the Master’s findings and issued its own Findings, Conclusions, and Decree in 2015. Greg appealed.
- The District Court valued the marital estate (over $7 million) and apportioned approximately 45.7% to Greg and 54.3% to Kit, rejected the Standing Master’s order requiring HFU to pay Greg a salary, and ordered Kit to buy Greg’s HFU shares for $400,000 with payment terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greg) | Defendant's Argument (Kit) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the District Court erred in dividing the marital estate under § 40-4-202, MCA | Division was incorrect; Greg sought a different allocation favoring him | Division should be equitable, reflecting Kit’s greater business contributions | Affirmed: equitable (not equal) division; District Court’s allocation not clearly erroneous |
| 2. Whether District Court abused discretion by rejecting Standing Master’s business valuations | Standing Master should have adopted Greg’s expert valuations of HOM/HFU | District Court properly found Greg’s expert overvalued HOM and accepted Kit’s expert | Affirmed: District Court did not err in rejecting the Standing Master’s valuations |
| 3. Whether including Greg’s premarital property in marital estate analysis was error | Premarital PERS and related assets should not be treated as marital assets | Court may apportion premarital assets under § 40-4-202 considering contributions and equity | Affirmed: under In re Marriage of Funk court may equitably apportion premarital assets |
| 4. Whether joint tax returns are dispositive evidence of ownership percentages | Equal distributions on tax returns prove 50/50 ownership and should control division | Tax returns are not dispositive; court must equitably apportion regardless of title or tax reporting | Affirmed: tax returns are not controlling; equitable division governs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Funk, 363 Mont. 352, 270 P.3d 39 (Mont. 2012) (court may equitably apportion all assets regardless of when or by whom acquired)
- Anderson v. Deafenbaugh, 376 Mont. 212, 331 P.3d 835 (Mont. 2014) (district court may reject a standing master’s findings when clearly erroneous)
- In re L.H., 336 Mont. 405, 154 P.3d 622 (Mont. 2007) (standard for clear error review of factual findings)
- In re Marriage of Bartsch, 337 Mont. 386, 162 P.3d 72 (Mont. 2007) (district court discretion to equitably divide marital property reflecting relative contributions)
- In re Marriage of Parker, 371 Mont. 74, 305 P.3d 816 (Mont. 2013) (equitable—not equal—division required under § 40-4-202)
- Marriage of Garner, 239 Mont. 485, 781 P.2d 1125 (Mont. 1989) (equity, not equality, guides property division)