*1 758 P.2d BEESLEY,
Patricia J.
Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross
Respondent, BEESLEY,
Gilmore T.
Defendant-Respondent-Cross
Appellant.
No. 16856.
Supreme Court Idaho.
June Office, Falls,
Jenkins Law for respondent. Royce plaintiff-appellant-cross Lee, argued.
Holden, Kidwell, Crapo, Hahn & Falls, defendant-respondent-cross ap- Holman, argued. pellant. D. James *2 in award- erred HUNTLEY, Whether court VI. Justice. attorney fees. ing Pat (Pat) (Gil) Beesley and Patricia Gilmore County, California married in Merced were I. Gil an enlisted February of 1951. was whether an first address We throughout most of their Army man in the equity half the award of credit for court’s twenty- and retired 1972 after marriage requirement home violates military in the Utah years of service. three to and credit the Utah giving full faith of in Salt Lake parties were divorced The decree. 17, 1985, lengthy a City January on after beginning in The Utah separation 1977. properly served summons Gil was on Pat’s a default dissolution court entered de proceedings and a Utah divorce to application Gil failed complaint and when he entered when dissolution was fault Pat the home appear and also awarded to and defend. The Utah appear failed court City. in Salt Lake The Utah located authority award Court had full to District Bees- rule the division of the to on refused Pat, City home to such real Lake Salt jurisdic- its leys’ property marital outside jurisdic property being within its in rem military retirement particular, Gil’s tion—in judgment adju a The was final tion. Utah personal jur- it did have —since attempt appeal made and Gil no dication filed subsequently Pat isdiction over Gil. judg A sister state the Utah decree. valid Idaho, resi- up Gil had taken suit in where must is res and be accorded judicata ment dence, judgment divid- in order to obtain a judgment final full faith and credit as a The ing Beesleys’ property.1 marital CONST, 4art. 1. Andre this state. U.S. § County in the action was tried Bonneville Morrow, 106 Idaho Court, Magistrate’s divi- and that court’s Pincock, (1984); Mitchell v. and property sion of has been reconsidered (1978). fraud or collu Absent through series modifications revised of sion, moreover, principle judica res appeals magistrate and and both at the applicable equally judgments ta is appeal. court this district levels before including default dissolutions. default — Robinson, 70 Idaho Robinson v. ON APPEAL ISSUES (1949). P.2d requiring are a There number issues determination: The court awarded Pat Utah Yet, home “all Utah therein.” to credit for I. Gil is entitled Whether called the Idaho courts were later when equity in the Home. one-half the Utah prop the rest of the marital divide error to II. Whether it was reversible eq they required to an erty, make use 1985 date of for valuation divorce upon a based considera uitable distribution property rather than the 1977 date Phillips v. of all circumstances. tion separation. Phillips, 93 Idaho P.2d III. Whether Although recognize must Idaho courts correctly valued and divided. benefits were equity in validity of award Pat of the erred in award- Whether IV. home, they may credit the the Utah unpaid ing her share of Pat interest on of the home in consideration all settlement. balance of all and offset circumstances accordingly; hold oth marital assets to credit Gil entitled V. Whether day unrealistic erwise would be against Pat’s of the retirement bene- share prop of marital age when the accumulation he $16,500 monthly payments fits for juris erty often the borders and di- transcends separation Pat made to between of several states. dictions vorce. although Georgia Beesleys places is the marital domi- low that cile, have lived in various Georgia requires marriage, and Idaho throughout “the law of of their name- the course California, Idaho, Washington, Jersey communi- ly, for division of or similar test New equitable being division.” Georgia. ty property, that an be- it was determined equitable considerations discussed of property valuation rather than the 1977 firmly
above are entrenched in Idaho com- separation. date munity law. Idaho Code 32-712(1) Beesleys appeared When the requires community prop- before
erty assigned magistrate “in proportions, must be such for purpose court the of from facts assets, all the of the case and the dividing the parties in parties, conditions of the [as court] troduced evidence of valuation of as And, just____” deems a homestead “[i]f separation as of sets the date of of and as community has been selected from the the date of divorce. It was then toup left property, assigned party may it to either magistrate the discretion of the which date assignment provided ... such is considered to use. community proper- of the distribution mag- Gil claims that it was error for the ty....” 32-712(3). I.C. § judge istrate to choose the date of divorce Idaho to her share Pat’s action in receive for of valuation the marital assets. How- brought pur- of the was ever, by objection record no reveals 32-712(l).2 Thus, suant to I.C. § Judge to Magistrate counsel Riddoch’s correctly courts below ruled that Gil was fact, In choice. counsel to admitted entitled to have Pat’s Utah Judge George on that he appeal Magis- told in the of home considered ultimate division Judge regard trate Riddoch with marital assets Pat’s Idaho action. Cf. use, which date to “We said we didn’t care Sheppard Sheppard, 104 v. Idaho ever In you which one used.” the absence (1982) (holding that a state court objection, preserved. no is error may offset a financial award in a communi- ty property part when the com- regard With to the valuation of marital munity by are in assets a trust created assets,3 underlying problem we note an protect sovereignty; federal tribal law appear properly that does not to have been being party the result that the Indian computing addressed below. In the worth proper- owner mained the sole of the trust assets, appear it does not of the marital ty, required recompense but was evidence was sub- the record sufficient party other for his to the com- contribution regarding mitted the debts and assets munity). during sepa- both accumulated period ration from to 1985. All debts
II.
prior
and income
to the 1985 divorce date
continues,
marriage
must be considered. A
The next
is whether
court
issue
the Idaho
is
using
regardless
separation,
erred in
the 1985 date of
until divorce
divorce
32-712(1)
provides:
authority
no
amend or rescind
Idaho Code
have
§
2.
agreement;
such
Community
and homestead —Dis-
health,
(3)
position.
by
age,
occupation,
decree of
The
case
divorce
—In
jurisdiction,
income,
skills,
competent
court of
property
vocational
and source of
em-
assigned
and the homestead must be
spouse;
ployability, and
of each
liabilities
follows:
(4)
spouse;
The needs of each
community property
be as-
1. The
must
(5)
apportionment
Whether the
is in lieu of
signed by
proportions
as the
the court
such
maintenance;
inor
addition to
court,
condition,
and the
from all the facts of the case
(6)
potential earning capa-
parties,
just, with due
deems
bility
party;
of each
following
consideration of
factors:
benefits,
(7)
including,
Retirement
but not
(a)
compelling
are
reasons oth-
Unless there
to,
service,
security, civil
limited
social
mili-
erwise,
equal
substantially
be a
divi-
there shall
tary and railroad retirement benefits.
debts,
value, considering
between the
sion in
spouses.
utilizing the terms "marital assets” or “com-
(b)
bear
whether
Factors which
herein,
munity
of course are mindful
assets"
we
equal,
of divi-
or the manner
division shall be
sion,
entry
what
of a
decree
exists after
divorce
include,
are not
but
limited to:
estate;
cotenancy
continued
our
use of
(1)
marriage;
Duration
analysis.
chosen is
words
for ease
(2)
antenuptial agreement
par-
Any
however,
ties; provided,
that the court shall
Former
under the Uniformed Services
earnings
All
sion
decreed.
I.C.
32-601.
§
(USFSPA),
Act
Spouses Protection
spouse
separation
after
are commu-
either
(1982).
32-906;
Suter v. Su- U.S.C.
nity property.
I.C.
§
(1976).
ter,
expenses
of the net
argues
Pat
that
to
net
in the Utah home which need
pension inequitably divides the
of the
value
addressed further. While we decline
be
in that
value is more
assets
its
closing
recognize
prospective
costs of
that
$77,651.
argues that
nearly
Gil
USFSPA
$5,000
Pat’s
possible
on the
future sale of
court
that
state
can
limits the benefits
computing
equi-
valid in
net
Utah home are
of the
percent
no
than 50
to more
divide
ty, it
determined whether the cost
must be
disposable retired or
amount of the
“total
roofing
of
the home should be offset
(i.e.,
created
pay
the net amount
retainer
against
Testimony
of
the value
the home.
for insurance and
allowed deductions
after
suggests
repairs
never
roof
have
(e)(1).
1408(a)(4),
taxes).” 10 U.S.C. §
made,
appraised
been
but that the
Supreme
has
Court
The California
contemplates
repaired
al-
roof. Pat also
net
the issue of
verses
squarely addressed
leges
that she incurred other debts
military pension under
division of a
during
period.
loans
this
While
fore-
dividing commu
context of
USFSPA
ex-
going listing of debts and loans is not
42
Thompson,
property.
In Casas v.
nity
totality
haustive of the
of financial events
33,
131,
Cal.Rptr.
720
228
Cal.3d
raised in this record
demand further
which
1012, 107
denied, 479
S.Ct.
(1986),cert.
U.S.
below,
perusal by
they
indica-
the court
are
(1986),
659,
the court deter
citing, U.S.Code News, pp. III. title, statutory Payment appeal issue in is the USFSPA’s central this compliance military pen- or retainer division of Gil’s retired
valuation and
portion
properly
Beesleys
calculated the marital
married for 21 of the
4. Since the
accrued,
military pension.
years
that Gil’s
21/23
orders, signifies
with court
that it
any
is basi-
means
under
available
law other
cally
garnishment
concerned with the
provided
than the means
under this sec-
pay.
As a
gar-
federal
tion in any case in which the maximum
statute,
nishment
disposable
“the
earnings
permitted
paragraph (1)
under
limitations does not effect the size of the
paid
has been
under
section 459 of
legal obligation
retiree’s
to the ex-spouse,
(42
659)
Security
Social
Act
U.S.C.
only
but
places limitations on monies that
USCS
case in which the
[42
§ 649]
can be directly collected
govern-
from the
permitted
maximum amount
under sub-
ment employer
pay period.
(See
in a
Ev-
(B)
paragraph
(4)
paragraph
has been
Evans, (W.D.Okla.1976),
ans v.
F.Supp.
paid.
added).
(Emphasis
580).” Casas,
Cal.Rptr.
720 P.2d
USFSPA clearly specifies in both its in-
at 930.
operation
tent and
military pensions—
1408(a)(2)(C),
Under 10 U.S.C.
a net
taken
part
as one
of the whole of the
figure,
“disposable
or
retired or retainer marital assets—can
divided
under Idaho
pay,”
pensioned
allows for the
party to
community property law in a pre-McCarty
*5
“properly
Federal,
remove
withheld ...
fashion.
State, or Local income taxes ...
deduct-
[or
In summary,
permits
the USFSPA
a
Government
life
premi-
insurance
ed]
state court to
the
consider
value of
1408(a)(4)(C),(D).
ums....”
10 U.S.C. §
computing
retirement
the value
Then,
1408(e)(1)
10 U.S.C.
limits the
§
However,
of the marital estate.
the USFS
payable
amount
percent
to “50
of such
prohibits
PA
awarding
a
court from
state
pay.”
retired or retainer
the non-military spouse
right
to collect
Congress recognized
percent
that the 50
more
percent
monthly
than 50
of the net
cap
payable
on the net amount
creates a
Thus, if
payment.
equal
retirement
an
or
deficiency
equitable
in the
distribution of
equitable
require
division were to
that 50
property:
marital
percent of the net retirement benefit would
Moreover,
makes it clear that
[USFSPA]
share,
not satisfy Pat’s
the trial court
percent]
mere attainment of that [50
up
by
would
the difference
have to make
a
ceiling
way
in no
absolves the former
disproportionate
of other assets.
award
member
outstanding legal
still
obli-
complete
until
valuation
a
of the
gations
alimony,
support
child
or oth-
for
community computed, including appropri
is
Any
er payments.
such unsatisfied obli-
offsets,
ate
credits for debts
one can
gation may
by
enforced
be
means
percent pro
not
the 50
determine whether
law____
available under
1408(e)(1)
viso of 10
will come into
U.S.C. §
(See
97-502,
11;
Rept.
supra, p.
No.
play. may
considering
that after
It
well be
Cong.
&
U.S.Code
Admin.News.
payment
offsets
due Pat will
less
be
1606;
added.)
p.
italics
percent
“disposable
than
net
retired
Casas,
Cal.Rptr.
[hjowever, not the case since such was awarding accomplished by might the retirement was this value of family [along non-employee-spouse all other used with debts, compute home, awarding employee- while assets] could pen- and the received what right wife to the entire spouse the future Be- lump payment. sum dividing be denoted method of The other sion. Beesley lump Mrs. is ing a settlement jurisdiction until rights is to reserve in- presently entitled monetary divide the actual tirement and is appropriate is the amount terest advantage when received. if benefit paid lump sum. (Emphasis ef- approach it lump sum added). spous- complete severance of fects a imme- gives spouse each es’ interests and George’s If Judge analysis is correct. or her share of diate control of his immedi- judgment cannot be satisfied v. Ram- community property. Ramsey judg- ately (e.g., if the satisfaction of the (1975). sey, hardship ment in full would cause undue parties), Pat then Gil can one above, III discussed in Part USFSPA As Jackson, See, Jackson installments. per- spouse only 50 non-military allows *6 393 the payable on cent of the net amount in payments If installment are ordered deficiency the with pension, the between award, lump lieu of a sum then interest being gross the net pension value the rate to discount the retirement utilized award of recouped by'a disproportionate present to their value must accrue However, possibly this cre- assets. other to If Pat is judgment on the award Pat.5 in unique rather situation which ates given control of the marital immediate fund dividing a retirement option for either given property, she must be the interest division, par- equitable not create an would simply she is entitled law. It is which rights represent ticularly pension when the her, effect, pay inequitable require portion the assets. largest marital the lost) (i.e., by deferred interest situation, consid- might the court In such a See, Lawson v. Law- payment schedule. dividing military pen- option for er a third son, P.2d options hybrid is of the two which sions course, consider Shill: is the Of while the award of interest evoked non-military per- judgment paid awarding spouse appropriate when a sum, upon cent of the net in a with the lump pension, installments instead of difference being gross to reeval- net remand the court below will have values between light entire sat- present equitably uate the settlement value and reduced interpretation 1408. of our U.S.C. If from other marital assets. isfied Shill, P.2d Shill 100 Idaho develops in which the situation difference values, (1979), possibili- court evinced two the net and this as re- between dividing pension: value, represents ties for a sum present duced to remaining larger than combined essentially only ways to There are two discretion, assets, may, at upon di- then the court its the retirement benefits divide payments employee- make an award of installment One is to award the vorce. balance) (with accruing non- interest on the assign spouse ap- equal lump This of a lieu of sum award. employee-spouse assets portion legal rate. be at the interest rates as to that retirement should interest lump sum award not attributable proach would create a fair and equitable parties, tions of the deems [as court] distribution of marital assets without un- just carrying ...” In out the mandate of duly burdening spouse.6 either provision code, the court must determine whether the health and/or em-
V. ployment potential might The next issue is quire whether Gil is that there unequal be an division of $16,500 entitled to credit for in payments property. There is not a prior made to Pat to the divorce decree. complete record on that issue before this Court, other than brief references to the Gil claims on appeal cross that he should fact that impaired husband is in his given $16,500 credit for paid that he earning capacity not, and, and the wife is Pat in monthly during installments therefore, this Court ruling makes no on eight year separation prior to the di- that issue. vorce. There is some conflict in the record over the payments character of the $300 Pat, Gil made to they but Gil claims that VII. approximately equal were to one-half of his The final issue is whether the court erred monthly military pension checks at that in awarding attorney Pat fees.
time. Gil asserts if given he is not In his Findings of Fact $16,500 and Conclusions credit for the sum that this will Law, Magistrate Judge Riddoch create a ordered disagree windfall for Pat. We Gil attorney’s affirm “reasonable the determination fees below. $2,000, not to exceed ... the exact amount Gil would be entitled to a credit for the to be determined after a Memorandum of $16,500 only if the plan Costs is submitted to the court.” ar-Gil valued as of the separation date of when gued before the appeal district court on payments commenced. Obviously, the argues and now before this Court that the eight value of years of future fees should be disallowed because the payments from 1978 to when added memorandum was not submitted within ten to the value remaining expect- for the life days. Judge George noted in his memoran- ancy after would increase the total *7 cross-appeals dum decision on the that the value as of 1985. Pat’s one-half of that order attorney for fees was “an award and increased value would undoubtedly trans- part became judgment and need not late into approximately one-half of the total have been an element of cost that had to be benefits, monthly per or the month included in a Memorandum of Costs and she received. days. filed within 10 This Court will not attorney disturb the fee award.” VI. Upon remand, in fixing remanded, connection with Since this case is we will not an appropriate division of pass upon the marital as- the appropriateness of the award sets, the trial And, court should be mindful of attorney of fees at this time. since 32-712(1) the mandate of I.C. which re- attorney the basis for the award of fees is § quires community property record, that the apparent must not from the we invite the assigned proportions, be “in such and from attention of the court and to I.C. 32-704,7 all of the facts of the case and the condi- pertinent part: which reads in encourage (1976). 6. We applied prior the trial court to consider versions I.C. Mifflin feasible, 32-708, awarding, percentage together if a of Gil’s mili- § 32-704 and which when read that, tary pension, granting percentage required awarding attorney since Pat a of while fees was discretionary, pension ensures that she will receive her the court must first resort to the community living taking for the fees before share of the benefit of cost of increases in separate property military pension they them out of the of hus- as accrue. band. 7. The above I.C. § version of 32-704 is the When I.C. §§ 32-704 and 32-708 were revised 1980, requirement attorney amended version of 1980. This revision of the in that fees be subsequent statute was made to our decision in satisfied first from assets was also 895, Mifflin, Ross, v. 97 Idaho removed. Our decision Ross v. 103 Mifflin interest in the retirement spouse’s money, set that support court Allowance of benefits, usually it would be better attorney Representa- then costs fees— retire- percentage of the what determine child. —---- tion of belong non-re- ment benefits should to time may from time 2. The court and then have the tiring spouse considering the financial resources after percentage based on that payments divided set parties and the of both forth factors stated they received. As Court as are Code, 32-705, Idaho order in section Shill, 433, 439, 100 Idaho v. Shill for the party reasonable 1004, (1979): P.2d maintaining or party of to the other cost under this act defending proceeding lump of a sum to a non-em- “An award fees, including sums attorney’s and for remedy may the better ployee spouse in- rendered and costs legal services amounts there are substantial where the commencement prior curred and the retirement liquid other assets entry judg- proceeding or after occurred, Ramsey has as either [v. may order ment. The 672, P.2d 53 Ramsey, 96 Idaho attorney, paid directly to amount be imminent, (1975)], retirement is or where name. the order in his may enforce who employee spouse is such where added). (Emphasis age. mandatory retirement close to reasonably calcu- accurate those cases in divorce attorney fees The award pension present value of has lation of property divisions and marital actions by reference to benefits be made province the trial court. long been indicate the See, Idaho actuarial tables which would Sherry Sherry, 108 v. (1985), Martsch, expectancy life dis- pensioner’s P.2d Martsch v. paid the (1982), sum that would be Lepel counting pos- during period for the pensioner 456 P.2d Lepel, 93 vest, However, by the sibility the court is also bound would presence 32-704 and pronounced standard I.C. value. duced to §§ liquid as- 32-705. amount of other a substantial the em- impact on sets will cushion part, part, reversed in Affirmed having buy spouse of out ployee proceedings consist- remanded for further spouse’s interest. where other appellant, Costs to no attor- ent herewith. retirement is uncertain the time for ney appeal. on fees awarded employee’s where the value of dependent upon the monthly JJ., BISTLINE, BAKES and concur. retire- employment years number of DONALDSON, J., did not sat but ment, known *8 factor not be which untimely his death. participate due to divorce, and where the time of the Justice, BAKES, concurring specially: af- maintenance employee will be from opinion. ter divorce I in the Court’s How- concur prop- property, or the IY, spouse’s separate ever, agree I that regarding Part while community, a rea- subsequent erty of a reduced the wife’s the trial court when calculation of sonably accurate to their retirement benefits interest pension rights de- present value then determined and may not be community effort buy from assets to rived insufficient other there were eases, the trial court possible. In these immediately, thus present value out that withholding the retire- satisfy that should consider requiring periodic payments disposition property rights ment from included interest must be obligation, parties hold the decreeing that the and if their are figure. on in com- as tenants rights to the benefits which can be liquid assets other sufficient employee spouse If and when the spouse to off- mon. non-employee awarded (1982), in effect and 32-708 which was still §§ based 32-704 was 684 P.2d judgment. court entered its prior I.C. when the trial language versions of in the does obtain retirement benefits the trial she would family’s receive the home portion can then determine what of Georgia and percent of Mr. Beesley’s rights were derived from retirement which at that time approxi- was property payments and divide the accord- mately per Beesley $600 month. Mrs. ingly.” would also family receive the automobile and the furniture SHEPARD, Justice, furnishing and in the concurring Chief family dissenting. magistrate judge home. The reject- ed Beesley’s Mrs. contention that there was I only concur as to the majority’s remand such a property de facto division. for additional evidence. As the remain- majority der of the I decision dissent. As Following the separation Mr. Beesley be- by majority, stated the' gan sending Mrs. Beesley per $300 month by divorced decree of a Utah court in 1985 which Beesley pursuant Mrs. asserts was after a marriage began which in 1951. to the de property facto agree- Plaintiff, Beesley, brought Mrs. this in- Beesley ment. Mr. hotly denied such as- ago stant years seeking action three divi- sertion, and testified that said sum was for sion of additional not treated the benefit of Mrs. Beesley help and to the Utah court. children who were on church missions. Beesley power Mrs. attorney secured The uncontroverted evidence indicates Beesley from Mr. Georgia and sold the Beesley employed Mrs. has been since 1962 home, obtaining $23,000 approximately $19,- and in 1984 earned a income of therefor. then She moved to Salt Lake per yéar. Her net year income for that City where $15,000. employment she secured was purchased a home. The title to that Salt Beesley Mr. serving retired after City placed only Lake home was in the years in the United Army States as a band Beesley name of Mrs. her son. When musician. His net retirement is $704 news of this foul deed reached Beesley Mr. per only month. His other income is a he per pay- discontinued the month $300 military disability per benefit month. proceeds ment. The from the sale of the Beesley hearing Mr. impaired, and it is Georgia home were invested the Salt impairment prevent- asserted that such has home, City Lake the total value which him obtaining employment. ed from He $59,000. magistrate was found that success, attempted, has without the teach- City in the Lake Salt home was ing public schools, music and has $20,000. approximately operated private teaching studio for the stipulated of music. It was that his net magistrate At the conclusion of trial the operating income from studio music attempted equities to balance the and ar- $1,000per year. was not more than At the percent rive at a 50 division of the marital unemployed, time of trial he was with no property party, having to each in mind that military pension other income than his already Utah court had awarded the his disability benefit. At the time of trial City Beesley. Salt Lake home to Mrs. Beesley Mr. lived with and cared for his balancing equities magistrate con- aged mother. sidered the marital interests City (as the Salt Lake home derived from parties separated in 1977 when *9 home), parties’ Georgia interest in the living Georgia. Mr. Bees- Beesley’s military the value of Mr. retire- ley Georgia original left for his home ment, and the Beesley’s value of Mrs. employment. Idaho Falls to seek Mrs. employment. tirement from mag- her The Beesley insisted at trial that at the time of istrate refused to consider separation agreement there facto indebted- was a de parties during ness accrued either of the the marital assets. asserts divide She separation, reasoning did not agreement contemplated that the that Mr. such $5,000 the marital Beesley community. magis- would receive in cash for benefit The purpose buying taking a car and trate also .allowed as a set-off in favor of $16,500 trip employment, Beesley, in search of and that Mr. paid west which he had more per respond at the rate for 55 months able $300 party. concluded, percent to 50 to each af- akin magistrate month. then accounts, balancing ter all of
50-50 division the marital $2,000 require Beesley at Mr.
would magis- per rate month. The of $150 no
trate reasoned that interest would Beesley did
allowed thereon because Mr. account, get interest on his retirement Beesley get hence should
and neither Mrs. reasoning interest. a certain That has charm. practical HICKMAN, Jr. and Roberta Fredrick C. magistrate court, Thereafter the the dis- Hickman, Law of T. Heirs at Robert court, Hickman, trict and this Court became involved Deceased and Steven J. Hick man, Plaintiffs-Appellants, principally revolving game in a numbers $16,500 Beesley around the which Mr. has already paid Beesley. question Mrs. EAGLES, FRATERNAL OF ORDER $16,500 paid seems to be said was whether 115, Defendant-Respondent. # BOISE agreement ini- pursuant de facto as tially argued by Beesley, Mrs. or whether and $16,500 argued by Beesley as Mr. was intrafamily transfer hence Mr. Davis; an and Does E. John 1 Thru William X; Corporation, Beesley is petard. hoist on his own ABC Defendants. my In the initial view decision magistrate appears to have been based 16755. No. justice, reasoning
substantial albeit his Supreme of Idaho. Court may faulty. Mrs. have been Thereunder home, Beesley her retains the Salt Lake July fund, interest her retirement whatever have, unimpaired other assets she $15,000 earnings per
net Mr. year.
Beesley rights retains his $2,000
subject pay- to an indebtedness of short, al- per
able month. In his $150
leged approxi- net income is reduced
mately per month.
Based on the I would above scenario
agree majority with the the matter proceedings.
must be for further remanded
If are found to be in accord with the facts above, representations set out
the stark unequal perhaps consider an should disproportionate distribution however, my opinion, property.
findings necessary Mr. are to whether
Beesley unemployable is in fact as *10 intima-
destitute as he asserts. There are following Mr.
tions in the record that trial affluent,
Beesley, while not is less destitute trial, hence more
than the time of