In Re the Marriage of King
216 Mont. 92, 700 P. 2d 591, 1985 Mont. LEXIS 775 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may equitably apportion the marital estate by awarding a significant asset, such as the family home, to the custodial parent in lieu of periodic child support payments from the non-custodial parent, especially when the non-custodial parent's income is speculative and unverifiable.
Facts:
- Jack King and Pamela King married in March 1971 and had two children.
- In 1977, the family moved to Montana and resided in the family home.
- Jack King's occupation was that of a professional gambler.
- Jack King testified to earning approximately $500 per month from gambling in Montana but conceded that there was no way of verifying his income.
- The couple separated in June 1980, and their children continued to reside in the family home with Pamela King.
Procedural Posture:
- The marriage of Jack and Pamela King was dissolved by the Missoula County District Court in June 1981.
- The District Court (trial court) reserved its decision on the division of marital property and child support.
- On February 29, 1984, the District Court issued an order dividing the property and establishing support.
- Following objections, the court entered an amended order on April 16, 1984, which awarded the family residence to Pamela King in lieu of child support from Jack King.
- Jack King (appellant) appealed the District Court's amended order to the Supreme Court of Montana, with Pamela King as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court abuse its discretion by awarding nearly the entire marital estate, specifically the family residence, to the custodial spouse as a means of satisfying the non-custodial spouse's future child support obligation, particularly when the non-custodial spouse has an unreliable and unverifiable income?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Hunt
No, a court does not abuse its discretion by awarding the family residence to the custodial spouse in lieu of future child support payments. A court is permitted under Montana law to consider child support obligations when dividing marital property and may set aside a portion of the estate for the support of the children. The primary consideration is the best interests of the children, which in this case included providing stability by allowing them to remain in the family home and ensuring a reliable form of support. Given that Jack King's income as a professional gambler was inherently speculative and unverifiable, a traditional award of periodic support payments would be an unreliable gamble. Therefore, awarding Pamela King the equity in the home was the 'only reasonable means' to ensure Jack contributed to his children's care and support, and this method was a valid exercise of the court's broad discretion to achieve an equitable apportionment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant discretion afforded to trial courts in crafting remedies in dissolution proceedings. It establishes that property division and child support are not entirely separate issues but can be interwoven to achieve an equitable result that serves the best interests of the children. The case sets a precedent for using a lump-sum property award as a substitute for periodic support payments, providing a crucial tool for courts dealing with parents who have non-traditional, inconsistent, or difficult-to-verify sources of income. This approach prioritizes the financial security and stability of the children over a rigid, formulaic division of assets.
