Archive | Dissolution (property valuation)

RSS feed for this section

Marriage of Clark

Marriage of Clark, 2015 MT 263 (Sept. 8, 2015) (Baker, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering Gordon to make an equalization payment within 120 days or be forced to sell or transfer the ranch; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to consider tax liabilities associated with selling the ranch; and (3) whether the district court erred in its valuation of the ranch.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) yes; and (3) no.

Affirmed (1 & 3) and reversed (2) and remanded

Facts: Gordon and Nancy married in 1996 and separated in 2012. No children were born to the marriage. Nancy entered the marriage with property on the Stillwater River (the river house) and Gordon entered the marriage with ranch property.…

Marriage of Steyh

Marriage of Steyh, 2015 MT 193 (July 7, 2015) (Cotter, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in holding that William’s statements made in the March 2012 dissolution hearing were judicial admissions; and (2) whether the district court erred in precluding William from presenting evidence of the value of the real property based on the judicial admissions.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.

Reversed and remanded

Facts: Julie petitioned for dissolution and included a proposal for distribution of the marital assets, under which William would have been awarded the couple’s house and property on Hobson Street in Butte. William elected to default.

The district court held a final dissolution hearing at which both parties appeared pro se.…

Cadena v. Fries

Cadena v. Fries, 2015 MT 90 (March 24, 2015) (Wheat, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly valued Fries’ pension plan in the QDRO; and (2) whether Cadena is entitled to attorneys’ fees on appeal.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, the time rule approach; and (2) yes.

Affirmed

Facts: In their settlement agreement of dissolution in 2000, Cadena and Fries agreed that Fries’ pension would be equally divided between them as of the date of the dissolution. Cadena filed a QDRO in November 2013. The pension had not fully vested or begun paying. Fries objected to Cadena’s QDRO and submitted his own.

Procedural Posture & Holding: The district court issued a QDRO identical to Cadena’s. Fries appeals, and the Supreme Court affirms.…

Marriage of Edwards

Marriage of Edwards, 2015 MT 9 (Jan. 13, 2015) (Cotter, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in ordering Jim’s corporation to undergo a Divisive Reorganization to effect an equitable distribution of marital assets, and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in valuing and distributing the marital estate.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Jim and Melinda Edwards divorced after 23 years of marriage. The majority of marital assets were held in Jim’s corporation, Bi Lo Foods, Inc. Based on considerable expert testimony about distributing corporate assets in a marital dissolution, the district court ordered Jim to proceed with a Divisive Reorganization (D Reorg) under IRS Rules to accomplish the division of assets ordered by the court and avoid immediate tax consequences to Bi-Lo or the parties.…

Marriage of Schwartz and Harris

Marriage of Schwartz and Harris, 2013 MT 145 (May 30, 2013) (5-0) (Rice, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by valuing the estate as of 2009 rather than 2002, when the parties separated; (2) whether the district court erred in its valuation of the Grizzly Security business; (3) whether the district court erred by failed to award Greg an offset credit for $400,000 paid to Jean while they were separated; and (4) whether the district court erred by ordering Greg to pay Jean $1.259 million without providing a method of payment.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no; (3) yes; and (4) yes.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part & remanded