MARRIAGE OF BECKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 92-143 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: BEATRICE BECKER, Petitioner and Appellant, and RODERICK R. BECKER, Respondent and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Mark P. Sullivan, Judge presiding COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Karl P. Seel, Attorney at Law, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Helene Orenstein, Attorney at Law, Bozeman, Mont Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: August 20, 1992 November 23, 1992 Chief Justice J. Beatrice final the Turnage of The District Court County, Court's issues entered raised in Cause No. to this 124 are unnecessary. issues the confusing did fourth, property property at District Court Upon the (wife), Court. appeals Eighteenth 19, the Judicial 1991. We affirm as follows: of fact in limiting the value and property marital were conclusions erroneous? previously of As the before original I). in Becker facts testimony on of the marital of law and fundamental fairness for further consideration Marriage outlined were Court to of Becker (1990), facts Court 244 Mont. applicable I, repetition to relevant this this to here appeal is can be as follows. Four As re the Additional summarized the of due process of this cause (Becker litigation are appeal In 798 P.2d District this 89-585, 469, for Court correct with determining Was there a lack 3. which would warrant remand by the District Court? The parties Becker on November on appeal Were the findings to child support and 2. Opinion decision. Was the District 1. remand to that associated real property? relating the Beatrice the Gallatin District delivered formerly Klein, judgment District, A. not remand, to us err with we held the in appraisal and improperly We remanded further the that I. three of Court District Becker to regard $42,550. for presented misinterpreted valued portion We held those the of case issues. a marital the the real to the consideration. District Court 2 revalued the marital real property at the valuation, estate the time District appraisers, testimony, the the property of Court Jerry Court at the time The District Court consider property Court 1984. entire real It is pertaining property the division property that appropriate value of any testimony, its The District jurisdiction of the marital Court's or of the marital support. that real refusal and the lowered wife Based upon this to entertain law, District two real in June 1984 was $27,500. of child of its at from to the valuation to the valuation from the of dissolution as a matter remand was limited testimony concluded or computation concluded, arriving and Gary France. also refused any evidence, personal considered Gossel District In dissolution. to valuation upon property consider in the of the marital appeals. T I. Was the District Court correct to that associated with determining property? The wife all issues contends pertaining However, this District Court. Court abuse its our analysis our instructions, in Becker our valuation I addresses of the marital we hold the District 3 real have considered property upon remand. instructions "[d]id of 798 P.2d at 128 (emphasis in of valuation should of marital with testimony on remand of the marital real we remanded reads, discretion I, Court conflicts The issue Becker standpoint District to division contention property?" entire the in limiting the value marital added). did & Moreover, issue property. Court the the District the this to from the In light of not in err limiting testimony value of the to that marital associated real with redetermination of the property. II. of Was the District Court's child support and valuation The wife next argues her and the against supported its by the In Becker no the that modify the parties because they Court. Becker I, District Court did property. Becker In addressing issues that the on subsequent District of District the Court the authority not err in allowing the than wife's had upon res grounds to based reached In his Court had sufficient agreement at District decree 127-28. doctrine in context. at issues erred personal P.2d 798 P.2d not marital 798 I, were Court the that had circumvented rather assessed in a different dissolution settlement payments support property issues contention the property the determination erroneous? support. these the child marital value child wife's modify we held held of the we addressed to authority support of to amount to long valuation of back She claims I, In responding child amount relating and the judicata, the record. conclusions property adherence to the prior of marital property between of the addition, District we held husband a credit share of the the the for real 128. previously of the proceedings before law this Court, we have of the case applies to those and appeals. When this Court on appeal affirms in part the judgment of the District Court, and remands for reconsideration other parts of the appeal, those parts of the judgment which are affirmed become the law of the case and are binding 4 upon the proceedings trial court on remand. City of Missoula v. 771 P.2d 103, 105. Once a decision issue between upon the 433, 709 P.2d Implicit in District agreement property are with sufficiently continual Surety of 99. of We hold N.Y. the valuation of the support v. of the marital conclusion property which at the the error a 218 Mont. not 128, "that modify the husband what payments" the a the marital include party may 1, case is proceedings the not same grounds. the he would personal the to 59 Mont. of at to character property make American 6, 195 P. applies and computation 99, to the of child be addressed. in the property. of binding in (1985), Whenever law personal claims time is support to (1921), of a the child upon Kartowitz placed 798 P.2d existing, will real 446, relitigated I, allow their issues also be Gies support. relief doctrine and those The wife in marital decision grounds paid of child for 442, on a particular of assigned issues application Co. been valuation all Court cannot Becker . . . to broad determination subsequent 236 Mont. that sufficient had amount this Marriage in had the (1989), a case, and in 636. holding he and the the assets if in parties 635, our of the received by re Court distribution have In appeal. 434-35, the the parties Co. rendered been and the Water same parties courts subsequent Mountain has the and District She contends gross value dissolution 5 of is not Court's the District $27,500 in revaluation on accord Court's the with real our discussion in opinion and Becker I. However, instructions In Becker discretion I, in for the remanded we held resulted the a year from the appraiser's 1984. Specifically, in the Court concluded until 1988. the property conclusion 128. time the was not 798 P.2d at Our further opinion with particular the not Nothing precluded to more remanded for determine in issue was the real real property in the 1984, the District in value improperly in 1988. record. this real for June than its a value Court by the this of the in 1984 abuse marital which derive District not the had decreased remand of real from 1984 concluded We held Becker portion to I, Becker that in Upon District direction determining its the such discretion the this 798 P.2d Becker I, Court I. at to marital I, 798 P.2d District the value Court whether 6 the 129-30. is real so. for record Our by Court the any held property. Where as to the "it property was bound the doing or restriction at District of from an issue, real Court remand, the District the Becker determine the for of opinion." dictate without were "valuation methodology. hearing utilized the on this another is first 128. consider did to property we remanded instructions consistent our misinterpreting value dissolution supported Accordingly, the did on upon Court attempting real worth error as to of Court $37,000 District As a result, was of The analysis at misconstrues District value 1988. estate property wife on remand. placing property the method trial before a case to be court it is sufficient be for taken this to Burroughs purpose supplement Corp. the (1976), to conduct Although they reveals that rather used both real valuation Mont. the 398, real District the parties supported the wife property disputes District stipulated 1984, into Court the that concluded was $21,078. conscionability supports remand for further (19861, 223 Mont. 343, 347, 725 by the real re P.2d 1205, does property property not 1208. in number However, Marriage of indicates and does not the 247 against exhibit stipulation. the evidence. owing the real petitioner's In in value credible against this (1991), The record settlement 7 concerning the appraised The $374 discrepancy proceedings. in property amount of debt the debt against of the property were of Porter by substantial the debt record are supported findings We hold Additionally, evidence, the is no abuse of discretion, Court's the necessary on the record. real Court at the time of dissolution. June 1984, was $20,704. 3, admitted of v. 612. who testified In re the Marriage is it methodology, and there P.2d 192, 194. property Finally, the real the 807 he felt of the District evidence of property. 395, different Laubach case on remand decisions value When the findings not disturb and should 548 P.2d 610, proceedings, approximate question. we will 456, appraisers as to credible 454, estate agreement substantial Lovely than base his somewhat the evidence Court Judge who heard this in the previous a hearing additional record." 169 Mont. Because the District was not involved or whether the in June affect the require of a Hangas III. Was there a lack of due process and fundamental fairness would warrant remand of this cause for further consideration District Court? The final a rehash guise of issues arguments devoid of any contrary and fundamental to denied to all lifespan of this litigation. an end to Carey v. be reached." applicable wife's her (1987), Court. Under the wife attempts to the in wife's contention she 229 Mont. We has been long previously, matter 57, 61, it "there has been 744 P.2d 881, 884. There The judgment is no is error with the decision of the affirmed. Chief 8 Justic in the throughout this she fairness. that stated than brief that and fundamental As we have and more the safeguards litigation, nothing by this contentions, procedural Wallner is Moreover, support due process the wife fairness, presented. authority afforded must by the addressed previously some way has been hold, advanced previously of due process reapply is argument which by the District Court. We concur: November23, 1992 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I herebycertify that the following order was sentby United Statesmail, prepaid,to the following named: Karl P. See1 Attorney at Law 1705West College,Ste. A Bozeman, MT 59715 HeleneOrenstein Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1093 Bozeman, MT 59771-1093 ED SMITH CLERK OF THE SUPREMECOURT
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.
