In re the Marriage of Monica Kitzmiller-Kerutis and Brian David Kerutis, Sr.

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed a dissolution decree involving division of the marital estate, maintenance, attorney fees, and contempt sanctions. The court affirmed most rulings but held that the district court used an inequitable valuation date for Brian Kerutis’s 401(k) and failed to distribute jointly titled Bigfork property. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on those issues.

Holdings

1. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by waiving the pretrial settlement conference, as the decision to order the conference was within the court's discretion under M. R. Civ. P. 16(a), and therefore the decision to waive it was likewise discretionary.
2. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to continue the proceedings, as Brian was not entitled to protections under § 37-61-405, MCA, and M. U. Dist. Ct. R. 10 because his representative O'Neil was not a licensed attorney.
3. The District Court made sufficient findings for appellate review of whether the marital estate was equitably distributed.
4. The District Court did not err by declining to find dissipation, as Brian failed to offer evidence demonstrating the marital estate had been dissipated as a result of Monica's gambling.
5. The District Court erred by using the date of the dissolution decree (April 30, 2014) to divide Brian's 401(k); the appropriate valuation date is the date of trial (May 23, 2012).
6. The District Court erred by failing to dispose of the five-acre Bigfork property, which was titled jointly in Brian and Monica's names and thus belonged to both spouses for purposes of § 40-4-202(1), MCA.
7. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding maintenance to Monica, as the court made sufficient findings under § 40-4-203, MCA.
8. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees, as there was sufficient evidence supporting the award based on necessity, reasonableness, and competent evidence.
9. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding Brian in contempt for removing a Polaris four wheeler in violation of the economic restraining order.
10. Monica's request for sanctions pursuant to M. R. App. P. 19(5) is denied, as Brian had reasonable grounds for the appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by waiving the pretrial settlement conference?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by declining to continue the proceedings?
3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate?
4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by awarding maintenance to Monica?
5. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees to Monica?
6. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on Brian?
7. Is Monica entitled to attorney fees for the cost of this appeal?

Disposition

affirmed_in_part_reversed_in_part_remanded