## Facts

- Pamela Sue King and Jack Dean King married in March 1971, later lived in California where their two children were born, and moved to Montana in 1977.
- The parties separated in June 1980.
- The Missoula County District Court (Fourth Judicial District) dissolved the marriage in June 1981 but reserved the issues of property division, custody, visitation, and child support.
- On February 29, 1984, the district court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order resolving the reserved issues; after objections, it entered amended findings, conclusions, and an amended order on April 16, 1984.
- The two minor children lived with Pamela after the dissolution; custody and visitation were set by the district court and were not challenged on appeal.
- Jack was a professional gambler, and the district court found his earning capacity and income were uncertain and not reliably steady.
- In dividing property, the district court awarded each party the personal property in his or her possession and awarded the family residence (the parties’ real property) to Pamela.
- The district court found that ordering a sale of the residence would make inadequate provision for the children’s support, would create substantial hardship by forcing the children to leave their home, and would impose significant costs (including realty fees and other expenses) that would consume assets needed for the children.
- The district court also determined it was in the children’s best interests to remain in the family home and concluded that awarding the residence to Pamela would allow her to use her earnings to support the children.
- As part of its overall disposition, the district court awarded the residence to Pamela in lieu of requiring Jack to make current child support payments.
- Jack appealed from the order and amended order, arguing the property division (including awarding nearly all marital assets to Pamela) was unsupported and that the court erred by awarding the real property to Pamela in place of ordering child support.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the district court’s award of nearly all of the marital estate to the wife.
2. Whether the district court erred in awarding the parties’ real property to the wife in lieu of requiring the husband to make child support payments.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order and amended order.
- The Court held that substantial evidence supported the overall property distribution, even though it awarded Pamela nearly all of the marital estate.
- The Court held that, under Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-202, the district court could consider the children’s best interests and support-related considerations when apportioning marital property.
- The Court held the district court did not err by awarding the family residence to Pamela in lieu of imposing a current child support payment obligation on Jack, given the findings about the children’s needs and Jack’s unstable income.
- The Court accepted the district court’s findings that selling the residence would impose significant costs, could eliminate a favorable interest rate, and would require the children to leave the family home, and it concluded those findings supported leaving the home with the custodial parent.

## Legal Principles

- Montana’s dissolution property statute, Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-202, permits a district court to consider child-related support needs and the children’s best interests when apportioning the parties’ property.
- An “equitable apportionment” of marital property need not be equal; a court is not required to divide every asset 50/50.
- A district court is not required to order a sale of the family home and split the proceeds; it may award the residence to one spouse when supported by the record.
- A court may account for the practical consequences of a forced sale of the home, including transaction costs and the effect on the children’s living stability.
- When a parent’s income is uncertain, the court may structure the overall dissolution order so the custodial parent receives a greater share of property to meet the children’s financial needs, including by awarding real property in place of a current child support obligation.

## Conclusion

In re Marriage of King affirmed a district court’s broad discretion under Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-202 to award the custodial parent the family residence and most marital assets where the record showed the children’s best interests favored staying in the home and the noncustodial parent’s income was too uncertain to support a reliable child support order; the Montana Supreme Court therefore upheld awarding the real property to the wife in lieu of current child support and affirmed the overall property division.


In re Marriage of King, 700 P.2d 591 (1985)