In re Marriage of Watson

How Does Montana Divide a Family Ranch One Spouse Brought Into the Marriage? In re Marriage of Watson, 227 Mont. 383, 739 P.2d 951 (1987)

Boland Aarab PLLP

Equitably, not necessarily equally. In In re Marriage of Watson, 227 Mont. 383, 739 P.2d 951 (1987), the Montana Supreme Court unanimously upheld an unequal division of a marital estate built around a multigenerational Chouteau County family ranch that the wife owned and operated before the marriage. Because the source of the property is a major factor under § 40-4-202, MCA, an award of about $952,000 to the wife and $520,000 to the husband was not inequitable.

Key Takeaways

• A district court has “far-reaching discretion” in dividing marital property, and its division will not be disturbed without a clear abuse of discretion (Watson, 227 Mont. at 387).
• The source of marital property, including property one spouse brought into the marriage, is a major factor under § 40-4-202, MCA (227 Mont. at 388–89).
• Findings drawn largely from one party’s proposal are acceptable if they are comprehensive, pertinent and supported by the evidence (227 Mont. at 387–88).
• A post-trial award for temporary living expenses could properly be offset against the recipient’s property award (227 Mont. at 389).

In this case sheet: At a glance · What the Court held · What changed · Statutes · When it applies · How hard · FAQ

The practice Tom Boland built is the practice that handles your case today. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

At a glance

What did the Montana Supreme Court hold in In re Marriage of Watson?

The wife had lived on and run a family ranch in Chouteau County since before the marriage, and the ranch was later in its fifth generation (227 Mont. at 384–85). When the parties married in 1950, the husband brought about five head of cattle (227 Mont. at 385). Over the following decades much of the ranch work was done by hired labor and by members of the wife’s family, who later managed and operated the ranch (227 Mont. at 385–86).

The District Court valued the ranch at $500,000 at the time of the marriage and $767,400 at the time of the hearing. It awarded the husband property worth about $520,000, including $200,000 in cash, and the wife the balance, about $952,000 (227 Mont. at 386–87). After trial, it granted the husband $28,000 for temporary living expenses but offset that amount against his property award (227 Mont. at 387).

The Supreme Court affirmed on both issues:

1. Property division.
2. Findings. The findings were largely drawn from the wife’s proposed findings, but the court “went to impressive lengths” in detailing the background and made significant changes, including raising the husband’s cash award from $150,000 to $200,000 (227 Mont. at 388).
3. Valuation. With neither party testifying to value, the court could weigh the appraisers’ opinions and those of longtime ranchers familiar with the property, and substantial evidence supported its figures (227 Mont. at 388).
4. Source of the property. The source of marital property is a major factor under § 40-4-202. As in In re Marriage of Summerfelt (1984), the wife brought substantially more net worth into the marriage, so the division “cannot be considered inequitable” (227 Mont. at 388–89).
5. Maintenance offset. The post-trial motion was based mainly on the need to pay attorney fees and transcript costs, and the parties had been ordered to pay their own fees. The award was not meant to alter the property division, so the offset was proper (227 Mont. at 389).

What did Watson change in Montana law?

Watson applied existing law rather than changing it. Its value is as a clear example of two points in Montana divorce practice: a trial court may divide property unequally when one spouse brought most of the estate into the marriage, and appellate courts give that judgment wide deference.

It was cited often in the years that followed. Later Montana Supreme Court marriage decisions citing it include In re Marriage of Popp (1989), In re Marriage of Stephenson (1989), In re Marriage of Skinner (1989) and In re Marriage of Butler (1990).

Which Montana laws and rules apply?

• § 40-4-202, MCA: division of property in a dissolution (227 Mont. at 387). The current text directs the court to consider, among other things, property acquired before the marriage or by gift or inheritance, and the contributions of the other spouse. It has been amended since 1987.
• § 40-4-203, MCA: maintenance. The two conditions the Court applied, that the spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot be self-supporting through appropriate employment (227 Mont. at 389, citing In re Marriage of Korpela), appear in § 40-4-203(1).

When might Watson apply to you?

• A farm, ranch or business that has been in one family for generations. The court looks at where the property came from, how its value changed and who contributed to that change.
• A long marriage with unequal starting points. Even after decades, what each spouse brought to the marriage can shape an equitable division.
• Temporary support during a divorce. Money paid while the case is pending may be counted against the final property award.

Every division turns on the court’s findings about the particular family and property.

How hard is it to overturn a property division on appeal in Montana?

It is difficult:

• Clear abuse of discretion. The district court’s division will not be altered unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown (227 Mont. at 387).
• Clearly erroneous findings. Findings of fact stand unless clearly erroneous (227 Mont. at 387).
• Weight of the evidence. The trial judge may give expert testimony whatever weight it deserves, and may accept a layperson’s opinion over an expert’s (227 Mont. at 388).

The Boland Aarab Way

Thomas E. Boland represented the wife in this appeal. The result rested on a detailed factual record of a ranch’s history, its value over time and who contributed to that value. Tom practiced in Great Falls from 1979, after his admission to the bar in 1974. His daughter, Caitlin Boland Aarab, and Samir F. Aarab founded Boland Aarab PLLP in 2017 as the successor to his practice. The same careful record-building goes into the serious trucking and injury cases and catastrophic injury cases the firm handles today. When you hire Boland Aarab, you work directly with the attorneys whose names are on the firm’s appellate opinions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Montana divide marital property 50/50? Not necessarily. The court must divide property equitably, and in Watson an unequal division was upheld because the wife brought substantially more net worth into the marriage (227 Mont. at 388–89).

Does it matter who brought a ranch into the marriage? Yes. The source of marital property is a major factor under § 40-4-202, MCA (Watson, 227 Mont. at 388).

Can temporary support be deducted from a spouse’s share of the property? It can. In Watson, a $28,000 post-trial award was properly offset against the husband’s property award (227 Mont. at 389).

Work With the Practice Behind These Cases

The practice Tom Boland built continues today as Boland Aarab PLLP, a Great Falls trial firm. The same attorneys who brief and argue before the Montana Supreme Court handle our clients’ serious injury, trucking and wrongful-death cases from the first call. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

About Boland Aarab PLLP: Boland Aarab PLLP is a Great Falls, Montana trial firm. Its attorneys, Caitlin Boland Aarab and Samir F. Aarab, have appeared in more than 40 matters before the Montana Supreme Court and have argued twice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The firm carries on the Great Falls practice Thomas E. Boland began in 1974. Meet our attorneys.

Sources:

• In re Marriage of Watson, 227 Mont. 383, 739 P.2d 951 (1987) (opinion PDF, CourtListener)
• In re Marriage of Watson (1987), opinion text (CourtListener)
• § 40-4-202, MCA
• § 40-4-203, MCA

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.