*1 VERT, Ap In re the MARRIAGE OF EVELYN Petitioner VERT, v. DANFORD O. Respondent Respond pellant, ent.
Submitted on Briefs Feb.
1980.
July
Decided
Marra, Wenz, Falls, Johnson, & Iwen Great respondent respondent. court. SHEA, the opinion delivered
MR. dissolution a marriage that portion The wife appeals distributed which Court District County in Cascade decree entered for maintenance her claim denied the property, *2 judgment the to support are insufficient findings the Because the record basis in entered, also no there is and because vacate we a final judgment, which to predicate sufficient upon for new remand was in error is that the trial court contention The wife’s primary share of was to a fifty percent that the husband entitled in deciding this home. In respect the sale of the family proceeds to consider that the trial court failed properly wife argues set forth in section criteria the controlling statutory apply 40-4-402, evidence shows that wife also that the MCA. The argues to and thus is entitled she is unable to herself presently maintenance, further, to that she is entitled virtual trial court adopted this case the the decree in
In entering submitted by and conclusions findings verbatim the proposed controlling findings, for the husband. counsel submitted by and conclusions verbatim findings it did adopt standards set forth the We have for the husband. previously counsel with sec to findings comply of sufficiency for determining MCA, 40-4-202, the cases of In Re Marriage in tion of Johnsrud 902, 907; (1977), 117, and In Re Marriage 572 P.2d 175 Mont. 840, 239, (1978), would serve no 577 P.2d 842. It 176 Mont. Reilly to that measured say reiterate them. useful to Suffice purpose again We woefully inadequate. these standards the here are findings 40-4-202, that the trial court not to section require, pursuant rather, statute, but that the listed in this recite the factors simply at to evidence trial presented trial these factors court apply which it is re on this and factors make its based evidence was not done here. to consider. It quired and the should be sold In determining all of first to consider trial court failed divided evenly, The husband is an assets and to a value on them. marital of the of the Patrol United Montana employee Highway Reserve; such, future, to receive as he is in the entitled States Army that she from each. While the wife here testified retirement benefits funds, in these retirement was not a direct marital interest asserting be considered. Mar- the fact is that are marital assets must they 1010, 1012, 60, (1979), 588 P.2d St.Rep. Cromwell riage of (1980), Miller 187 Mont. 609 P.2d See also In Re Marriage of an from the service is where we held retirement pension who person asset of the and is not sole property the military duty. the contributions consider Nor did that the wife estate. The trial court found of wife the marital all sources to the better had contributed a total of the other it found that the husband ment of the On from all sources the better had contributed a total to how There are no absolutely ment the marriage. at for the wife and there the trial court arrived its as to how the trial court arrived its are no absolutely 142,500 $ of them to be for the husband. Both appear figures *3 were to the trial court by out of the air. pulled They proposed counsel for the husband. husband, court it that the trial appears of his own contributions to the husband’s entire estimates
adopted set forth in an exhibit. There was a total which he had marriage hus- lack of for such exhibit. For support example, band valued his contribution to the in the way salary marriage $15,000 is that the each for The fact per years. year year eight salaries, admitted in rela- husband’s as evidenced the two forms by Furthermore, from this was far below this. tion to certain years, a a child for child from the husband salary paid that the trial court bought It also appears previous he worked on the fami- husband’s estimates of the number of hours the trial court did hour worked. But per $5 home at the rate not, however, the number of hours make to evaluate attempt any the wife performed the work which value of a reasonable nor duties she performed. and the other on the house the marriage throughout husband worked is It true that it is also true of income. But source was the primary therefore theAt these married years. idle exactly during the wife was not here, and contributed old she was years of her marriage time from marriage: representing assets to the many Broadus; $3,000 in the form of furniture of her home in sale automobile; $20,000 of an as the value and appliances; deed resulting a contract for representing proceeds a and cash in check- husband’s business sale of deceased former her the wife repossessed account. course During ing $8,500, and the installment sold it for and then the business $12,000, of which was con- all interest amount payments plus husband, on the other brought The tributed to the marriage. $4,000 in a few personal possessions into the marriage only substantial was not idle at home: she performed debts. The wife a erecting improving labor in remodeling fence, concrete, and and hanging painting chain link pouring chores and maintenance by she household wallpaper; show; she sewed clothes cur- and shoveling lawn mowing canned, tains, sweaters; a she raised garden, and knitted sold raised, beef, she seedlings; and sold produce traded produce and, she assisted inTais- and turkeys; killed and chickens processed a previous marriage. her husband’s children by ing the hus- in evaluating court had no trouble the trial Although contributions, or why no idea of how we have band’s contributed that the wife had in concluding at the figure arrived if the marriage. Surely the betterment total of husband, at a could arrive it at a could arrive court for the wife. to the disposition in relation must be held Because new hearing it is premature of by agreement, assets not disposed of the marital is true concerning The same the issue of maintenance. to decide *4 can be in only position The trial court issue decide these issues after it has arrived at an equitable 40-4-202, MCA, division in property with section compliance the cases forth the setting method of compliance.
The judgment apportioning marital assets is vacated and returned for a new The trial court is instructed to obtain a proper basis for whatever it reaches and to enter proper conclusions. DALY, SHEEHY,
MR. HARRISON and concur. JUSTICES HASWELL, MR. CHIEF specially concurring: I concur in the result on the are not grounds sup- ported by evidence and that the are insufficient to sup- port judgment.