BECKER v BECKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 85-213 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 EDWARD F. BECKER, JR., Petitioner and Appellant, -vsSANDRA L . BECKER, Respondent and Xespondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: James J. Sinclair, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Wright, Tolliver & Guthals; Kenneth D. Tolliver, Billings, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: o C r 8 1985 July 12, 1985 October 8, 1985 Mr. Justice Court. L. Gulbrandson C. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f the Edward F. B e c k e r , J r . , p e t i t i o n e d f o r , and was g r a n t e d , a d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e and now a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f property o r d e r e d by The i s s u e on a p p e a l t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court. i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y . W e affirm. The husband s e t s f o r t h two s p e c i f i c i s s u e s : (1) Did including i n District the Court abuse its discretion t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e t h e husband's corporation while excluding t h e w i f e ' s by s t o c k i n one stock i n a d i f f e r e n t corporat i o n ? (2) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by f a i l i n g t o s e t f o r t h t h e value of t h e wife's corporate stock? A l t h o u g h n o t s t a t e d a s an i s s u e on a p p e a l , t h e husband a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n c o r r e c t l y valued h i s corporate stock. Ed Jr., Becker, Sandy B e c k e r , appellant, i n May 1974. married the respondent, They h a v e o n e c h i l d . Appellant p r e v i o u s l y worked f o r h i s f a t h e r a t R e c k e r ' s G l a s s Shop, I n c . (Becker, Inc.) Appellant was Becker, Inc. of this , and e a r n e d the a n e t m o n t h l y income o f vice-president and the shop $1,717. foreman of H i s f a t h e r f i r e d him a s a r e s u l t o f t h e f i l i n g H e had worked divorce action. for his father for f o u r t e e n y e a r s . P r i o r t o h i s m a r r i a g e , a p p e l l a n t had r e c e i v e d 1,000 shares of Becker, Inc., from h i s father. After h i s m a r r i a g e , h e r e c e i v e d 21,000 s h a r e s o f B e c k e r , I n c . , father. Appellant was employed v a r i o u s t i m e s he r e c e i v e d t h e s t o c k of B e c k e r , I n c . by Becker, these shares. Inc., from h i s at the H e owns 42-43% o f Appellant's Jim, brother, acquired c o r p o r a t i o n w h i l e h e w a s employed t h e r e . stock j.n the Apparently, J i m did n o t a c q u i r e any s t o c k a f t e r l e a v i n g t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . t i m e of the At trial, a p p e l l a n t worked in the glass b u s i n e s s f o r h i s b r o t h e r and e a r n e d a n e t m o n t h l y income o f H i s job i s s e a s o n a l . $1,627. H e has a bachelor's degree i n b u s i n e s s f r o m E a s t e r n Montana C o l l e g e . Respondent i s employed a s a l e g a l s e c r e t a r y and e a r n s a net monthly income college degree. of $1,300. She d o e s n o t have a D u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , s h e was g i v e n s h a r e s o f stock i n her parents' her parents' about farm ( t h e M i l l C r e e k Farm) e s t a t e planning e f f o r t s . Respondent t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t o c k h a s a t o t a l v a l u e o f $32,725. addition t o her secretarial job, a s part of Respondent, i n took c a r e o f t h e house, the cooking and t h e c l e a n i n g d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . In February 1984, dissolution of marriage. fact and filed A non-jury a petition t r i a l was h e l d for i n the The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s c a s e i n Oc t o b e r 1984. of appellant conclusions of l a w i n December 1984. Neither party objects t o t h e dissolution of t h e i r marriage, t h e child s u p p o r t award, or the c h i l d custody decision. Appellant's only complaint is t o t h e division of property. District The appellant's marriage Court found stock i n Becker, and while h e worked that 21,000 shares of w e r e acquired during t h e Inc., for the company. The court c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h o s e s h a r e s w e r e t h p p r o d u c t of t h e m a r i t a l effort estate. and court therefore The c o u r t v a l u e d $37,841.87. that should stock based be those included 21,000 in the shares of marital stock a t The c o u r t d i d n o t i n c l u d e i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e given this t o appellant prior valuation on a t o t h e marriage. financial statement The of Eecker, Inc., which had been supplied by the company's c e r t i f i e d public accountant. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s s t o c k i n t h e M i l l Creek Farm had been g i v e n t o h e r a s a g i f t and was n o t e a r n e d by h e r . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t a p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t had n o t enhanced o r m a i n t a i n e d t h e M i l l Creek Farm o r r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e farm. did not include respondent's be divided Therefore, t h e court stock i n t h e marital e s t a t e t o among t h e p a r t i e s . The c o u r t d i d n o t a s s i g n a v a l u e t o t h i s s t o c k i n i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law a r e o t h e r w i s e d e t a i l e d and c o m p l e t e . The m a r i t a l e s t a t e was v a l u e d a t $159,144.27. r e s p o n d e n t was awarded $74,097.40. Of t h i s , She a l s o r e c e i v e d a l l o f t h e Mil.1 Creek Farm s t o c k , which h e r u n c o n t r o v e r t e d t e s t i m o n y valued at $32,725 Appellant received contends that (for a total $85,516.87 the Becker, award of $106,822.40). from t h e m a r i t a l Inc., stock, estate. which He represents $37,841.87 o f h i s t o t a l award, i s a c t u a l l y v a l u e l e s s . As the first issue, appellant contends that the D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by i n c l u d i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s stock in the marital estate while excluding respondent's stock. The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s c l e a r . In dividing property in a marriage dissolution t h e d i s t r i c t court has f a r r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n and i t s judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d w i t h o u t a showing o f c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . The t e s t o f a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment o r e x c e e d e d t h e bounds o f r e a s o n r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l injustice. I n R e t h e M a r r i a g e o f R o l f e (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , 699 P.2d 623, 626; c i t i n g I n re M a r r i a g e o f V e r t St.Rep. 680 P.2d 5 8 7 , 41 S t . R e p . Appellant's (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 895. first issue essentially raises two (1) w h e t h e r r e s p o n d e n t ' s s t o c k s h o u l d h a v e S e e n q u e s t i 0 n . s; included 7 9 , 8 3 , 42 in the marital estate; s t o c k should have been and included (2) whether a p p e l l a n t ' s in the marital estate. As t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d , t h e s e a r e two d i s t i n c t i n q u i r i e s . S e c t i o n 40-4-202, . . . states in part: MCA, In dividing property acquired by gift the court s h a l l consider those contributions of the o t h e r spouse t o t h e marriage, including: . . . ... ( a ) t h e nonmonetary homemaker; contribution (b) t h e extent to which contributions have facilitated maintenance o f t h i s property . .. This Court determining has held the marital that estate, a of a such the district court, in is not required t o include q i f t property given t o one spouse during t h e marriage. Snell r . I n re Snell the (Mont. Marriage of 1 9 8 3 ) , 6 6 8 P.2d Jorgenson I n re t h e 606. (1979), o f Herron 40 S t . R e p . 1 8 0 Mont. 1359; 294, ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 1 8 6 Mont. 590 P.2d 3 9 6 , 608 set f o r t h broad g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f 97, P.2d 238, g i f t o r bequest property. One s u c h g u i d e l i n e i s t h a t : [ i ] f none o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y i s a product of contribution from the marital effort. [ s i c ] t h e District Court can justifiably find that the non-acquiring spouse h a s no i n t e r e s t i n the property. Herron, 1 8 6 Mont. r e s p o n d e n t r e c e i v e d h e r s t o c k i n M i l l C r e e k Farm Here, as a gift Moreover, a t 404. under neither her parents' party worked estate on the planning farm scheme. except for i s o l a t e d odd j o b s . not" when At trial, asked contribution to if the he felt farm appellant replied he had made operation. "absolutely a significant a l s o agreed He with c o u n s e l ' s remark t h a t a p p e l l a n t made no c l a i m t o a n y i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y farm. justifiably find Under H e r r o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d that in 606. respondent's contrast appellant no interest in 238; J o r g e n s o n , W e h o l d t h a t t h e r e was no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n excluding In had See a l s o S n e l l , 668 P.2d respondent's stock. 5 9 0 P.2d appellant to acquired stock from respondent's his stock w o r k i n g f o r t h e company. the acquisition Similarly, estate. of stock, Inc., when Becker, in marital h e was t h e r e i s evidence t h a t h i s b r o t h e r a c q u i r e d h i s s t o c k i n B e c k e r , Inc.*when h e worked for t h e company. H i s s i s t e r d i d n o t receive a n y s t o c k i n t h e company. facts These support a conclusion r e c e i v e d t h e s t o c k a s compensation gift. Additionally, appellant, cooking, appellant f o r w o r k i n g and n o t a s a by maintained t h e value o f t h e stock. care of t h e family's that working, enhanced and F i n a l l y , respondent took c l e a n i n g and l a u n d e r i n g w h i l e Under t h e s e f a c t s , i t a p p e l l a n t was w o r k i n g f o r B e c k e r , I n c . was n o t a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o f i n d that appellant's and should, s t o c k was a p r o d u c t o f therefore, be included in the marital effort the marital estate. Appellant f u r t h e r complains t h a t t h e lower c o u r t e r r e d i n assigning value t o appellant's shares of stock. argues that his stock is valueless its building and because: land Appellant (1) the from a p p e l l a n t ' s corporation leases father; a p p e l l a n t ' s f a t h e r can l i q u i d a t e t h e c o r p o r a t i o n at (2) will; and (3) corporation and However, trial, at appellant cannot even appellant has no work admitted control for the that he over the corporation. thought the s t o c k was w o r t h s o m e t h i n g , t h a t R e c k e r , I n c . , h a s a good name t h a t t h e company h a s b e e n t h e r e f o r a number o f y e a r s . and The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n v a l u i n g t h e s t o c k , r e l i e d u p o n f i g u r e s supplied CPA. by Becker, Inc.'s, accountant, F.obert A. Everson, The c o u r t c o m p u t e d t h e s t o c k ' s v a l u e b y d i v i d i n g t h e v a l u e o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s t o t a l a s s e t s , less l i a b i l i t i e s , b y t h e number o f o u t s t a n d i n g s h a r e s . This Court has expressly R u r l e i g h v. a p p r o v e d t h i s method o f v a l u i n g s t o c k . 1 9 8 2 ) , 650 P.2d (Mont. 753, 39 S t . R e p . 1538. Burleigh W e uphold t h e t r i a l court's valuation. Finally, appellant contends the lower court erred n o t making a f i n d i n g as t o t h e v a l u e o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s of stock. in shares T h i s Court h a s s t a t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t must n e t worth o f the parties a t the t i m e of determine the divorce. I n r e t h e M a r r i a g e o f L o e g e r i n g (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 689 P.2d 260, 41 St.Rep. P.2d 1 2 8 2 , 40 S t . R e p . the 1892; Beck v. 565. That s t a t e m e n t , however, h a s n o t Beck (Mont. been a r u l e s t r i c t l y adhered t o by t h i s Court. 1 9 8 3 ) , 661 W e have a l s o stated that: F a i l u r e t o p r e c i s e l y set f o r t h n e t worth of p a r t i e s does n o t c o n s t i t u t e abuse of d i s c r e t i o n so l o n g a s t h e f i n d i n g s a s a whole a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o d e t e r m i n e n e t w o r t h , I n R e Marriage o f Nunnally (1981) , M o n t . , 6 2 5 P.2d 1 1 5 9 , 38 S t . R e p . 5 2 9 , a n d the findings themselves w i l l n o t be disturbed u n l e s s a preponderance o f t h e evidence clearly mandates contrary determinations. Cameron v. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 2 1 9 , 5 8 7 P.2d 939. Le P r o w s e v . LeProwse (1982), 1 9 8 Mont. 357, 646 P.2d 526. I n t h i s c a s e , it w a s n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l court to n o t assign a value t o an a s s e t not included i n t h e marital estate. Here, value t o the stock, although t h e court did not assign a t h e c o u r t c l e a r l y considered t h e w i f e ' s s t o c k a n d a w a r d e d it t o h e r . T h e r e was n o d i s p u t e a s t o t h e stock's value. Respondent was w o r t h $32,725. consistently admitted the stock Appellant does n o t a t t a c k t h i s v a l u a t i o n . T h u s , a s i n LeProwse and N u n n a l l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s as a whole are sufficient to determine net f i n d i n g s were o t h e r w i s e c o m p l e t e and e q u i t a b l e . worth. The W e hold t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t commit an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of property. respondent's s t o c k was, The o m i s s i o n o f a valuation a t most, harmless e r r o r . Court s t a t e d i n I n R e t h e Marriage o f Z i e g l e r 696 P.2d 983, 987, 42 St.Rep. 298, 302, What t h i s (Mont. bears for 1985), repeating: W e do n o t wish t o r e s t r i c t t h e l i b e r a l , discretionary power vested in the district courts, by requiring rigid a d h e r e n c e t o t e c h n i c a l forms o f p r o p e r t y distribution orders. This Court r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t must its ultimate evidence the basis of conclusion in the findings of fact. However, the statutory guidelines p r o m u l g a t e d i n 40-4-202, MCA, w e r e n o t d e s i g n e d a s r e q u i s i t e c r i t e r i a t o be individually itemized i n every property d i s t r i b u t i o n decree. Affirmed . ,, " ,' I Justice' W e concur: Justices
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
