不審 FAMILY LAW MATTERS

Hand Jam

Climbing a crack up Lolo way.

Donald and Irene divorced in 2004 after 43 years of marriage. He was 70 and she was 69 at the time. The trial court then divided their assets including his pension approximately equally — according to the valuation testimony at trial. Donald had some part time jobs and had more social security than Irene. The trial court awarded Irene lifetime maintenance of $1,000 a month from Donald. Donald appealed the maintenance award as well as the trial court’s inclusion of all of premarital and inherited assets of both parties in the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed the original decision in In Re Marriage of Crilly 2005 MT 311.

Five months after the Supreme Court had affirmed the trial court’s initial decision, Donald filed a motion to end maintenance. The trial court ultimately granted the motion and this time, Irene appealed. Irene had been awarded 3 lots as part of her division of the marital net worth. At the time of trial, those lots were valued at $225,960. She subsequently sold the lots for $556,000 — approximately $330,000 more than the value at trial. Donald’s income, through no fault of his own, had decreased $1,000 a month. And the sale of the property converted the lots to income-producing property.

The Supreme Court affirmed. Clearly, the division of property in retrospect was not equal by a long shot and there was ample reason, the Court held, to find that continuing to require Donald to pay Irene maintenance was unconscionable.

The decision is In Re Marriage of Crilly, 2009 MT 187.