Marriage of Low, 2018 MT 6N

Background

Jessica Low filed for dissolution in 2010 after a 1998 marriage; lengthy proceedings included an interim family support order (Jan 2012) requiring Scooby to pay $1,842/month plus the $1,461.44 mortgage.
The district court denied Scooby’s 2012 motion to amend the interim order, finding changed circumstances but not unconscionable relief given Scooby’s employment choices; the court authorized sales of assets to cover debts.
A two-day bench trial occurred in Aug 2012; after many interim orders and long delays, the court entered a dissolution order Dec 29, 2015 but issued the final decree Jan 3, 2017.
The final decree reallocated $600/month of prior family support as child support and $1,242 as temporary maintenance (retroactive to Feb 2013), found Jessica self-supporting by Oct 2013, and calculated a support arrearage for Scooby (totaling $30,078.62 as of Oct 2013 before later adjustments).
The court awarded Jessica multiple money items (half the home sale proceeds, an equalization payment for personal property, missed mortgage payment credit, tax refund share, and arrearage) and entered a total money judgment of $65,675.95 against Scooby.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed most of the decree but reversed and remanded to delete awards for missed mortgage payments and for Jessica’s half of the 2010–2011 tax refunds, reducing the judgment accordingly; the Court also criticized the district court’s delay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court properly denied Scooby’s 2012 motion to amend the Interim Support Order	Jessica: interim order should stand because Scooby’s income change resulted from his choices and circumstances were not unconscionable	Scooby: substantial change in circumstances (loss of seasonal income) warranted amendment	Denial not an abuse of discretion on record, though court applied an imperfect legal standard; later final decree retroactively adjusted obligations to reflect changed earning capacity
Whether arrearage calculations and credits were proper	Jessica: court correctly accounted for payments, proceeds applied, and reduced arrearage accordingly	Scooby: disputes amounts credited and use of Jessica’s 2016 status report	Overall calculation upheld; Scooby had opportunity to contest and did not successfully do so
Treatment of home sale proceeds already paid to Jessica	Jessica: proceeds were applied to support debt, and court properly credited and then accounted for distribution	Scooby: improper to award Jessica half because she already received all proceeds	Court held distribution/credit treatment did not constitute abuse of discretion—proceeds were applied toward arrearage, not marital equity distribution
Equalization for personal property valuations	Jessica: valuations and equalization based on parties’ exhibits were reasonable	Scooby: court erred by adopting each party’s valuation without rationale	Court permissible to adopt reasonable valuations supported by evidence; equalization upheld
Whether Jessica should be credited for missed mortgage payments and tax refunds	Jessica: entitled to those amounts as part of equitable division	Scooby: court lacked basis to award because proceeds and refunds had already been exhausted/applied earlier	Court reversed these two specific awards—no basis to credit Jessica for missed mortgage payments or tax refunds—and remanded to reduce judgment accordingly

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Clark, 357 P.3d 314 (Mont. 2015) (district court broad discretion in apportioning marital estate; cannot award more than marital estate without proper basis)
In re Marriage of Schwartz, 308 P.3d 949 (Mont. 2013) (court may adopt any reasonable valuation of marital property supported by evidence)
In re Marriage of Hedges, 53 P.3d 1273 (Mont. 2002) (valuation discretion and evidentiary support for property awards)
In re Marriage of Krause, 654 P.2d 963 (Mont. 1982) (preferable to value property at time of distribution; use present fair market values)
In re Marriage of Bartsch, 88 P.3d 1263 (Mont. 2004) (valuation principles and timing for dissolution distributions)
In re Marriage of Pospisil, 1 P.3d 364 (Mont. 2000) (factors and timing governing valuation and division of marital property)
In re Marriage of Dennison, 132 P.3d 535 (Mont. 2006) (court abuses discretion when apportioning more property than exists in marital estate)