 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Collins v. Collins12/21/2004
ss was no longer a going concern, as is the case here. Further, the District Court noted Lonnie did not introduce expert testimony regarding the proper valuation method nor did he have the business valued by an appraiser or other qualified individual. Finally, the court found the "garage sale" to which Lonnie alluded and objected to, was made as of the date of the parties' separation in 2002 and thus did not factor into the valuation for either business.
We have recognized district courts face a considerable task in determining property valuation. In the final analysis, it is not a question of whether we would be persuaded to reach a different conclusion after considering the same evidence. Rather, the test is whether the district court had adequate evidence to support its conclusions. In re Marriage of Haines , 2002 MT 182, 23, 311 Mont. 70, 23, 53 P.3d 378, 23. Therefore, we affirm the District Court's findings in regards to the valuation of the marital estate.
ISSUE TWO
Whether the District Court erred in distributing the marital estate.
Lonnie argues the District Court abused its discretion by attributing to him the full amount of the home mortgage and the Frogfur business. Lonnie asserts his share should not be burdened with the home mortgage because he used the loan proceeds to pay off Gail's credit card debts, make improvements on the commercial building and replace other items taken by Gail after she filed for dissolution. Further, Lonnie maintains the court erred in dividing the value of the real property while awarding him the value of Frogfur's inventory and equipment. Lonnie asserts since the court awarded him the value and possession of the inventory and equipment, he is also entitled to the value of the commercial building that currently houses those items.
Gail counters the District Court did not abuse its discretion in distributing the marital estate. Gail asserts the mortgage was procured after the parties separated and without her consent. Further, Gail contends Lonnie failed to produce any evidence at trial indicating the loan proceeds had been paid to a creditor, used for improvements or employed to replace household items. Finally, Gail maintains she contributed to the real property's purchase, maintenance and renovation during the party's marriage and therefore is entitled to an equitable portion.
The criteria for determination of the division of property is defined in ยง 40-4-202(1), MCA, which provides:
(1) In a proceeding for a dissolution of a marriage . . . the court . . . shall . . . finally and equitably apportion between the parties the property and assets belonging to either or both, however and whenever acquired and whether the title thereto is in the name of the husband or wife or both. In making the apportionment, the court shall consider the duration of the marriage . . . the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each party . . . he court shall consider those contributions of the other spouse to the marriage, including:
(a) the non-monetary contribution of a homemaker;
(b) the extent to which such contributions have facilitated the maintenance of this property . . . .
In applying the statute, the court enjoys wide discretion in equitably apportioning the marital estate. In re Marriage of Dow (1993), 261 Mont. 319, 323, 862 P.2d 1123, 1125. An equitable distribution does not require a 50/50 distribution of the marital estate. In re Marriage of McNellis (1994), 267 Mont. 492, 501, 885 P.2d 412, 418.
We conclude the District Co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|