## Facts

- Michael Keedy began collecting baseball cards as a child.
- When Michael married Carol Keedy in 1973, he owned a premarital card collection the parties agreed was worth $5,000 at the time of marriage.
- Over roughly 16 years of marriage, the premarital cards increased in value and Michael acquired many additional cards, resulting in a combined collection exceeding 100,000 cards.
- The parties separated in 1989, and the dissolution required equitable distribution of their property.
- The parties agreed the $5,000 premarital value should be excluded from the marital estate, but they disputed whether Carol should share in the increase in value attributable to Michael’s premarital cards.
- Michael argued Carol should not share in any increase in value of the premarital portion because she did not contribute to that increase.
- Carol asserted she contributed to the collection’s maintenance and growth during the marriage by encouraging Michael’s collecting, buying products related to specific cards, protecting the cards from flood damage, and making financial sacrifices that allowed card purchases.
- Michael presented evidence attempting to identify which specific cards were premarital, but the trial court found it could not determine, within the combined 100,000-card mass, which cards were acquired before the marriage.
- The trial court treated the collection as one asset for distribution and ordered Michael to divide the full collection into two sets, after which Carol could choose one set.
- Michael appealed the property-division ruling regarding the baseball cards.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in treating the entire baseball-card collection as marital property subject to equal division when Michael claimed a premarital subset but the court found the premarital cards could not be reliably identified within the commingled collection.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering division through a “you divide, the other spouse chooses” method for splitting the collection.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court upheld the district court’s finding that, given the size and mixing of the collection, it was not reasonably possible to identify which specific cards were premarital.
- The Court held the district court acted within its discretion in dividing the collection equally and in using the “divide into two sets, then choose” procedure.

## Legal Principles

- Montana district courts have broad discretion to equitably apportion property in dissolution proceedings; appellate review is deferential, with factual findings reviewed for clear error and the division reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Property a spouse owned before marriage may be treated differently from property acquired during marriage, but when items are commingled such that the separate portion cannot be reliably traced or segregated, the court may treat the combined asset as marital for distribution purposes.
- A spouse’s indirect and noncash contributions to the preservation, maintenance, or acquisition of property during marriage may be considered when determining an equitable distribution, including claims to a share of increases in value during the marriage.
- Trial courts may employ practical division mechanisms for unique personal property where item-by-item identification, valuation, or allocation is not workable; a “you cut, I choose” approach can be an equitable method to reduce disputes about fairness.

## Conclusion

Because the district court found it could not reliably separate premarital from marital cards within the commingled 100,000-card collection, and because the chosen split-and-select method was a practical, equitable way to divide the collection, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the equal division order.


In re Marriage of Keedy, 813 P.2d 442 (1991)