Marriage of McKittrick
2017 MT 151N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Amy and Lonney McKittrick married in 1999; no children. Lonney earned substantially more as a construction worker; Amy earned less as an intermittently self-employed artist/service worker.
- The parties pooled finances into a joint account throughout the marriage.
- Between 2012–2014 Amy received $220,533.88 in monetary distributions from family trusts following family deaths, plus inherited stocks and partial interests in Nevada real estate.
- The couple built a straw-bale home (valued at $250,000); Lonney acted as general contractor for six months and performed substantial labor; Amy also contributed labor and received family gifts/loans used on the house.
- The district court characterized the inherited stocks and Nevada properties as non-marital (finding Lonney made no contribution to obtaining/maintaining them) but traced the cash trust distributions into the joint account and credited Amy $220,533.88 against the marital home, then subtracted $35,000 to compensate Lonney’s construction labor.
- Lonney appealed, arguing the court inconsistently treated inherited cash as marital (crediting Amy) while excluding other inherited assets, and that his earlier earning and household contributions justified a larger share of Amy’s monetary inheritance.
Issues
| Issue | McKittrick (Appellant) Argument | McKittrick (Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inherited cash distributions deposited into the joint account must be fully credited to the inheriting spouse or otherwise shared | Court erred by crediting Amy the full $220,533.88 despite commingling; Lonney should receive a larger share | The distributions were traceable and equitably apportioned; Amy may be credited for the traced funds | Court: district court did not err — cash distributions were traceable and properly credited to Amy for apportionment |
| Whether inherited stocks and Nevada real estate were marital property subject to division | Inconsistent treatment: excluding those assets but treating cash as marital was improper | Amy argued those non-cash inheritances should be awarded to her because Lonney didn’t contribute to obtaining/maintaining them | Court: although district court mischaracterized them as “non-marital,” it nonetheless valued and apportioned them and found Lonney made no contribution; disposition affirmed |
| Whether district court adequately considered § 40‑4‑202 factors (nonmonetary contributions, maintenance of inherited property, overall equity) | Lonney contends his nonmonetary contributions and earlier status as primary earner justify greater award | Amy points to commingled funds, trust distributions, and lack of Lonney’s contribution to specific inheritances | Court: district court made specific findings under § 40‑4‑202; findings not clearly erroneous and discretion appropriately exercised |
| Whether apportionment was an abuse of discretion | Lonney argues apportionment unfairly favored Amy given shared use of funds and his household contributions | Amy argues apportionment equitably considered all statutory factors and traceability of funds | Court: no abuse of discretion; equitable division affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Bartsch, 162 P.3d 72 (Mont. 2007) (standard that district court has broad discretion to apportion marital estate equitably)
- In re Marriage of Crilly, 124 P.3d 1151 (Mont. 2005) (standards of review for property division: clear error, correct law, abuse of discretion)
- Marriage of Walls, 925 P.2d 483 (Mont. 1996) (equitable distribution need not be equal distribution)
- In re Marriage of Funk, 270 P.3d 39 (Mont. 2012) (inherited property may be awarded entirely to inheriting spouse, but court must consider nonmonetary contributions and maintenance of the inherited property)