IN RE: the Marriage of: Matthew ROBERTS (2024)

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 Fidela Roberts (Fidela) appeals from the October 6, 2023 Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. We affirm.

¶3 Fidela asserts the District Court erred by failing to value the parties’ property in Grenada, including the customized Jeep, assigning both assets to Matthew, and failing to equitably apportion the marital estate. Contrarily, Matthew asserts that based on the lack of information and evidence offered at trial by the parties, the District Court's election to provide an “UNKNOWN” valuation for various assets of the marital estate was not an error of law. Given what the District Court knew about the parties’ assets and debts, its division of the parties’ property and debts between them was not an abuse of discretion.

¶4 Fidela and Matthew Roberts (Matthew) married on September 17, 1994. Matthew filed his Petition for Dissolution on April 13, 2022. At the outset of the first day of trial, the District Court noted that Matthew was requesting sanctions against Fidela for her failure to provide discovery responses. During this discussion, Matthew's counsel advised that Fidela's discovery responses had only recently been dropped off at his office—six months beyond the required response date. The court offered Matthew opportunity for a continuance, but he declined and the parties proceeded to trial.

¶5 Throughout the marriage, the parties owned two businesses—MR Concrete and Justice Properties. MR Concrete was a concrete construction business operated jointly by the parties.¹ Matthew was primarily responsible for organizing and completing concrete construction projects while Fidela primarily managed the business accounting and finances. Justice Properties is a property rental business which owns a variety of properties which it rents out to others. This business was likewise operated jointly by the parties with Fidela primarily responsible for the financial operations of the business. Matthew's primary contention in the dissolution was that Fidela was not entitled to an equal distribution of the parties’ net worth as she had dissipated the parties’ assets throughout the marriage and had likewise secreted assets so that it was unknown what assets she retained. At trial, he presented evidence that throughout much of the marriage after the businesses had grown into profitable entities, the parties took draws from the businesses for personal use and at times used business accounts to pay personal expenses. Fidela in particular drew large sums from business accounts and used them to provide for their children, their household, and to purchase lavish goods—such as expensive designer handbags—for herself. There was also some evidence presented that she used funds from these draws to help her friends and to gamble. As the years passed, her spending increased, and the fund withdrawals increased substantially to the point the parties were unable to pay their tax obligations. When Matthew tried to reign in her spending by opening a separate financial account in his own name, she opened credit cards in his name, incurred charged expenses, and wrote bad checks on accounts for which he was responsible. Further, Matthew asserted that Fidela thwarted discovery such that it was unknown what she secreted away in her retirement accounts and elsewhere.

¶6 Fidela presented conflicting evidence that the items she purchased were not lavish (knockoff handbags rather than expensive ones), were inherited or derived from her parents, and/or primarily benefitted the parties’ household and children, rather than just her.

¶7 In approximately April 2022, Fidela moved out of the parties’ marital home to Grenada where Matthew was raised. Some years earlier, the parties’ purchased a coastal plot of land in Grenada for $90,000 or $98,000 and, in the interim, Matthew's brother had begun building a house on the property which was approximately 50% complete. Matthew testified that he owned the Grenada home jointly with his brother per their verbal agreement. The parties disputed the valuation of the Grenada property but neither provided expert evidence of valuation beyond their personal opinions.² The parties also provided evidence that Matthew purchased a rebuilt Jeep Wrangler ³ in 2013 for $19,500 and Fidela paid $17,000 to have the Jeep transported to Grenada. The Jeep is titled and registered to Matthew's brother.

¶8 Without including the Grenada property and Jeep, the District Court apportioned the parties’ assets and debts between them on a near equal basis. Matthew was awarded $1,423,377.65 in assets and $747,750.48 in liabilities, and was ordered to pay Fidela $100,000 for a net estate to him of $575,627.17 and Fidela was awarded $643,534.85 in assets, $100,000 from Matthew, and $98,504.60 in liabilities for a net estate of $645,030.25. The District Court addressed the Grenada property, Jeep, and Fidela's retirement accounts, asset dissipation, and discovery abuses separately. The District Court determined it was equitable to award Matthew the Grenada property and Jeep as the evidence suggested Fidela secreted money, including retirement funds; took advantage of her situation throughout the marriage to withdraw monies from the marital estate largely for her benefit alone; and because of “her complete failure to meet discovery demands,” the court had insufficient information to determine “values of accounts held by” Fidela.

¶9 As a district court's division of marital property is an equitable proceeding, we review the court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law for correctness. In re Marriage of Funk, 2012 MT 14, ¶ 6, 363 Mont. 352, 270 P.3d 39; Estes v. Estes, 2017 MT 67, ¶ 12, 387 Mont. 113, 391 P.3d 752. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if upon reviewing the record, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court made a mistake. In re L.H., 2007 MT 70, ¶ 13, 336 Mont. 405, 154 P.3d 622. On appeal, each case must be examined individually, with an eye to its unique circumstances, and absent clearly erroneous findings, the district court's property division must be affirmed. Estes, ¶¶ 12-13.

¶10 We may review the division of marital property to determine if there was an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Thorner, 2008 MT 270, ¶ 21, 345 Mont. 194, 190 P.3d 1063. The test for abuse of discretion is whether the district court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice. Thorner, ¶ 21.

¶11 Relying on Baer, Horton, and Dirnberger, Fidela asserts a district court “must equitably apportion the marital property of the parties predicated upon a finding of the net worth[ ]” and the District Court failed to do so as it assigned no particular value to the Grenada property or Jeep. Matthew asserts this case is distinguishable from Baer, Horton, and Dirnberger and more analogous to Lewton.

¶12 We agree with Matthew. Baer involved assets which the unrefuted evidence demonstrated were acquired during the marriage, but which the district court deemed to be premarital. Given the unrefuted evidence, this Court reversed and remanded to the district court to treat the disputed assets as marital, not premarital, property. In re Marriage of Baer, 1998 MT 29, 287 Mont. 322, 954 P.2d 1125. Here, there is no issue as to premarital versus marital property or mischaracterization of an asset by the district court contrary to the unrefuted evidence of record.

¶13 Horton involved valuation of the marital residence which the parties agreed had a net value of $160,000. The district court valued the property at $80,000, a reduction of $80,000 as a gift from wife's father. As the record contained no basis for the assignment of $80,000 as a gift and there was sufficient evidence of near equal contributions to the marital residence by both parties, the district court erred in providing an offset for the wife's asserted gift. In re Marriage of Horton, 2004 MT 353, 324 Mont. 382, 102 P.3d 1276. Here, the District Court did not assume a gift where no evidence of such was presented, but rather considered the conflicting evidence of the parties in the context of the entire marital estate.

¶14 Finally, in Dirnberger, this court referred to Marriage of Metcalf where the district court failed to consider the marital debt before apportioning the marital property between the parties which resulted in an inequitable division of the marital estate with a net deficit to one of the parties. In re Marriage of Dirnberger, 237 Mont. 398, 773 P.2d 330 (1989). Here, the District Court considered all of the assets and debt of the parties, including the assets where exact valuation was not possible given the parties’ evidentiary presentations and discovery abuses, and the court apportioned the assets and debts between the parties in a manner to provide each substantial assets with ongoing income to meet each of their living expenses in the future.

¶15 As Matthew points out, Lewton is far more analogous to this case. In Lewton, like here, the parties owned businesses in which they both participated. The district court, similar to the case at hand, struggled with establishing particular valuations for the marital assets as neither party provided substantial evidence outside of their independent testimonies. The district court distributed some assets among the parties without particular valuations—with assets ranging in value. On appeal, husband made the same argument that Fidela does—the district court failed to determine the net value of the marital estate and thus erred in making an equitable apportionment of the marital estate between the parties. As we noted in Lewton, the determining factor is not valuation of net worth with utmost particularity but “whether the findings as a whole are sufficient to determine the net worth and to decide whether the distribution is equitable.” In re Marriage of Lewton, 2012 MT 114, ¶ 15, 365 Mont. 152, 281 P.3d 181. Both parties testified about the Grenada property and Jeep but neither provided expert valuations or much more than their personal opinions.⁴ From the District Court's findings, it is clear the court considered the parties’ general valuations of these assets, the admission that Matthew's brother jointly owned the Grenada property with Matthew, and Fidela's escalating dissipation of marital assets and discovery abuses—which hindered valuation of assets Fidela retained in her possession or secreted from the marital estate—in determining it to be equitable to award the Grenada property and Jeep to Matthew.

¶16 Given the evidentiary presentations of the parties, the District Court's findings were not clearly erroneous. The District Court considered, as required by § 40-4-202, MCA, the duration of the marriage and the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties in apportioning the assets and debts between the parties. Based on the record before us, the District Court did not act arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment. When reviewing the District Court's findings as a whole, the apportionment of the parties’ assets and debts between them was equitable, and we find no error.

¶17 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.

¶18 Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It has since ceased operation, and Matthew has started and is operating a different concrete business.

2.   Evidence presented was that the land was purchased for $90,000 or $98,000 and that thereafter Matthew's brother began construction of a house on the property. Both parties testified to the house being of decent or large size. The home is approximately 50% completed. Fidela testified she believed the Grenada property was conservatively worth $250,000 and would be worth more once construction was finished. Matthew testified he did not know the value of the property but did not believe it would be worth more than $300,000. Matthew further testified that he owned the home jointly with his brother, which Fidela also acknowledged in her testimony, though no documentation shows Matthew's brother to have an ownership interest in the property.

3.   While there are different model years listed for the Jeep in the record, the parties agree there is only one Jeep they purchased and then transported to Grenada.

4.   It is noted the parties’ general valuations of the Grenada property were not substantially different with Fidela valuing it at approximately $250,000 and Matthew not more than $300,000 upon construction being completed, and their valuations for the Jeep were likewise similar in nature.

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

We concur: MIKE McGRATH, C.J. JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, J. BETH BAKER, J. JIM RICE, J.