Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Marriage of Broesder

Supreme Court of Montana

September 12, 2017

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: SANDRA J. BROESDER, Petitioner and Appellee, and DONALD W. BROESDER, Respondent and Appellant.

          Submitted on Briefs: August 16, 2017

         APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADR 12-138 Honorable Gregory G. Pinski, Presiding Judge

          For Appellant: Jason T. Holden, Katie R. Ranta, Faure Holden Attorneys at Law, P.C., Great Falls, Montana Jeffrey S. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana

          For Appellee: Antonia P. Marra, Marra, Evenson & Bell, P.C., Great Falls, Montana

          OPINION

          JIM RICE, JUSTICE

         ¶1 Donald W. Broesder appeals the Order issued by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, affirming and adopting the Standing Master's April 13, 2016 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Dissolution, which dissolved the marriage between Donald and Sandra Broesder. We reverse and remand, addressing the following restated issue:

         Did the District Court err by failing to consider the tax consequences of the distribution of the marital estate, resulting in an inequitable distribution?

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         ¶2 Since 1951, Donald has lived and worked on the Broesder family ranch, which was homesteaded by Donald's grandfather in 1911, and then owned by his parents. Donald and Sandra were married in 1976, and for approximately 35 years they lived and worked on the ranch. Together with their sons, Seth Broesder and Shane Broesder, and daughter-in-law, Sarah Broesder, Donald and Sandra own the ranch in a small corporation with restrictions upon the sale of stock.

         ¶3 During the marriage, Donald worked exclusively on the ranch, while Sandra worked both on the ranch and elsewhere, including serving as a Pondera County Commissioner. Sandra's non-ranch income was used for personal expenses, as well as for ranch and family expenses. Seth, Sarah, and Shane have also worked on the ranch. Ranch shares were given to Donald and Sandra to compensate them for their work on the ranch, and for property and assets, which they transferred to the ranch corporation when it was originally incorporated. Shares of the ranch corporation are held as follows:

Owner

Shares Owned

Ownership Percentage

Donald

9909

39.65%

Sandra

9908

39.64%

Seth

4087

16.35%

Sarah

600

2.40%

Shane

496

1.96%

Total

25, 000

100%

         ¶4 The parties agree the ranch is the significant marital asset, and the land is the significant ranch asset. The total value of the ranch is approximately $3.1 million, with the land valued at approximately $2.3 million. Donald and Sandra both have minimal personal assets. As counsel for Sandra stated, at the hearing before the District Court, the land is "really the majority asset of the corporation. And, in fact, that was the reason the other shareholders sought to intervene."

         ¶5 Seth and Sarah moved to intervene in the matter, arguing that intervention was necessary to protect their interests in the ranch. The Standing Master denied the motion for intervention, reasoning "[t]he notion that an equitable division in this matter cannot be achieved without compelling the sale of assets is speculative."

         ¶6 During the proceedings, Donald suggested Sandra keep her ranch shares as her portion of the marital estate, but Sandra offered it would be necessary, in that event, for her to be given "some sort of control" over ranch decisions, as well as receiving reimbursement for living costs the ranch had provided during the marriage. Regarding possible sale between them, Donald suggested using the book value of $10.25 per share set, in 2003, by the shareholders pursuant to their stock agreement as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.