STANDARD OF LIVING FOR MAINTENANCE IS STANDARD DURING MARRIAGE/ NO PROBLEM EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OF SPOUSAL ABUSE

Equitable division of the marital estate and maintenance were the issues in this case. The case turned on the failure of the District Court to rule on wife's post trial motions, ignoring wife's contribution to the marriage as a homemaker and wife's entitlement to maintenance.

This was a 14 year marriage between veterinarian and homemaker. No children. Million dollar estate with only $55,000 in debt. Most of the assets were husband’s premarital property. Wife made significant contributions to the maintenance of husband’s premarital property. Husband is retired. Wife moved out, earned little income and obtained subsidized housing. She received a small maintenance award over 6 months, $11,000 of her medical bills paid by her husband in lieu of maintenance and some property. She received a net worth of $99,000. He received $995,000. Wife suffered from physical ailments and PTSD. She offered testimony about physical abuse from husband, but that testimony not admitted, although she was allowed to testify as to her physical limitations.

District Court referred to standing master who issued findings. Wife objected. Post trial, wife diagnosed with breast cancer. Filed Rule 59 motion before the District Court to take the new development into account in deciding maintenance issue. District Court refused to take additional evidence and simply did not rule on wife's post trial motion for maintenance.

Wife appeals. Reversed.

• Procedurally, the District Court was wrong to rule that it could not accept new evidence following the issuance of the standing master report. The District Court never ruled at all on wife's post trial motions. That was error:
• “¶39 We have previously held that in certain circumstances, when a court does not exercise its discretion in a matter, this itself constitutes an abuse of discretion."
• If notice of appeal filed before disposition of Rule 59 motion is given legal effect on the date the district court denies the motion, or if the court never rules, on the date it is deemed denied.
• The filing of a notice of appeal does not deprive the district court of authority to rule on Rule 59 motion.

• Standing master erred by finding that wife’s homemaker contributions did not matter as much because husband was retired.

“¶49 The Standing Master erred in her assertion that Gail's and Bill's respective stages of life "lessened Gail's contribution" to the marital estate. Nothing in Funk or Tummarello supports the premise that one party's stage of life "necessarily lessen[s]" the other party's contributions to the marital estate. Gail made significant contributions to the maintenance of Bill's premarital property as a homemaker, and her contributions to the property continued after Bill's retirement. The Standing Master erred in weighing the factors of § 40-4-202(1), MCA, in regards to Gail's nonmonetary contributions to the marriage as a homemaker.”

• Standing master erred by not awarding significant maintenance:
• While the master listed several factors that led to a conclusion that the wife could not support herself, master failed to award maintenance.
• The master used the wife’s current budget, a dramatically reduced standard of living, as a reasonable budget for her. Should have used the standard of living established during the marriage.
• The master ordered husband to pay $5,000 of her $30,000 in legal fees and $11,430 of her medical bills “in lieu of maintenance.” This did not fix the problem of her inability to support herself.
• The in lieu of maintenance award can be property, but it must be income producing property:

“¶53 Our statutes and case law do not support the Standing Master's conclusion that Bill's payment of a portion of Gail's debt was appropriate in lieu of maintenance payments. Gail was unable to meet her needs independently, especially given the standard of living established during her marriage. Section 40-4-203(2), MCA. The finding that Gail's monthly expenses were $805 was based on her rent while living in subsidized housing, not the standard of living established during the marriage. Furthermore, a payment of debt is not "income-producing property" which would help Gail meet her own needs in the future. In re Marriage of Tow, 229 Mont. at 486, 748 P.2d at 441.”

• However, the Supreme Court affirmed the standing master's refusal to allow wife to testify that the husband was the cause of her physical disabilities. Maintenance awards must be determined without regard to marital misconduct. The Standing master refused evidence of husband’s abuse, but allowed evidence of wife’s physical and emotional limitations. That is not reversible error, the Supreme Court ruled. However, it cited the In Re Fenzau distinction:

¶58 "The maintenance order must be in amounts and for periods of time that the court considers just, without regard to marital misconduct." Section 40-4-203(2), MCA (emphasis added). However, "a distinction exists between awarding a larger portion of the marital estate in order to penalize marital misconduct, and, on the other hand, considering the medical and financial consequences of marital abuse in the allocation of the marital estate." In re Fenzau, 2002 MT 197, ¶ 26, 311 Mont. 163, 54 P.3d 43.

Patton v. Patton, 2015 MT 7