Marriage of Spawn and McGowan
2011 MT 284
Mont.2011Background
- Karen petitioned for dissolution of marriage to Dan in Lewis and Clark County after long separation and reconciliation years earlier.
- Dan worked for the State of Montana, rising to an administrator role before being terminated in 2010, then taking another state job; his current salary is about $37,800.
- Karen was a homemaker for nearly 19 years with limited employment opportunities and now works part-time on a ranch.
- The marriage produced two adult children; a child support order is not at issue in this appeal.
- The marital estate included Dan’s State PERS defined benefit plan and a Glacier County property purchased for $25,000 in 2000; the home at Wylie Drive was sold and $75,000 was awarded to Karen.
- District Court used a 18 years, 10 months, 19 days marital duration for pension calculations and denied some reimbursement claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to divide Dan's PERS retirement | Karen seeks 50% of the marital portion of the pension. | Dan argues for either current value or alternative division without actuarial data. | Time-rule method required; remand to recalculate under Rolfe framework. |
| Divison of Glacier County property | Karen should receive a substantial portion consistent with marital duration and contributions. | Property division proposed by district court should be reconsidered in light of pension outcome. | Remand to reconsider Glacier County property distribution alongside pension recalculation. |
| Award from Wylie Drive sale and reimbursements | Karen’s $75,000 award reflects prior gifts and family contributions. | Dan seeks reimbursement for $13,635.20 of improvements. | Remand; issue to be considered with overall marital estate on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Swanson, 2004 MT 124 (Mont. 2004) (pension division requires flexible, non-formulaic approach)
- Rolfe v. Rolfe, 234 Mont. 294 (Mont. 1988) (time-rule method for marital portion of pension)
- Sirucek v. Sirucek, 219 Mont. 334 (Mont. 1985) (present value method not universally required)
- In re David, 2009 MT 422 (Mont. 2009) (timing of division when retirement has not yet occurred)
- Kis v. Kis, 196 Mont. 296 (Mont. 1982) (present value considerations in pension valuation)
- Also cited: Prather, 'Characterization, Valuation, and Distribution of Pensions at Divorce', 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 443 (1998) (describes present value vs time-rule approaches)