For many couples, a dog or cat is as much a part of the family as their children. Individuals involved in a Montana divorce are often more concerned about their pets than they are their house or belongings. Though Montana law does not treat pets in the same manner as children, they can be a very important piece of the divorce puzzle – one that must be dealt with carefully and with concern for what is best for a pet.
If you are divorcing in Montana, or plan to divorce, there are a few basics you must be informed of with regard to your family pets. First, no matter how much you may love your pets, Montana law still considers pets as property. While many pets have only sentimental value, others can be quite valuable (think horses and other livestock).
Because pets are property, the same rules apply to them that apply to any other kinds of property. In a Montana divorce, this means that the pets would become a part of the court’s property distribution and are to be “equitably apportioned” between parties. The exceptions to the rule are the same for pets as they are for other kinds of property. In other words, your pet remains non-marital property if it was (1) gifted to you individually; (2) you inherited the pet through an inheritance; or (3) you owned the pet prior to marriage.
As with most things in a divorce, it is ideal if you and your soon-to-be-ex-spouse are able to negotiate and agree on what will happen to your pets. In the event you cannot agree, the court could order the pet be sold and the proceeds split in some equitable manner.
If you have children that are particularly attached to your family pets, you may consider having the pets become part of your Parenting Plan as the children’s “property.” This is more easily accomplished with a dog or cat that can travel back and forth with the children.
If you are working with an attorney, make sure you communicate with him or her about how important your pets are to you and what you feel might be best for them. That way, your attorney can assist you in handling the issue.
In Arnold v. Sullivan, the Montana Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of premarital property in divorce. More specifically, the court discussed how to deal with the appreciation of that property during the marriage. In the case, the wife entered the marriage owning a home as her sole property. During the marriage, the mortgage payments on the home were made from the proceeds of the couple’s business where they both worked. During the marriage, the mortgage was paid off and the home was owned free and clear. The question before the Court was what, if any, share of the home’s value is the husband entitled to.
The Montana Supreme Court restated its position that “assets belonging to a spouse prior to marriage, or acquired by gift during the marriage, are not a part of the marital estate unless the non-acquiring spouse contributed to the preservation, maintenance, or increase in the value of that property.” Remember, determining what is part of the marital estate is important in Montana because it is the marital estate which is divided between the parties during the divorce. Anything not in the estate is simply awarded to its original owner (no matter its value).
However, if the other spouse contributes to the premarital property’s preservation, maintenance, or appreciation, that spouse should be awarded his or her equitable share of that preserved, maintained or appreciated value attributable to his or her efforts. This does not include any appreciation in the value of the property due simply to market factors. Basically, this means that if the property increased in value due to the efforts of contributions of the other spouse, that increased value should become part of the marital estate and distributed equitably.
The question remains: when do the other spouse’s contributions rise to level necessary to entitle him or her to an equitable share of the increased value? Unfortunately, Arnold v. Sullivan only makes it clear that the husband’s work which enabled the payment of the mortgage was sufficient to entitle him to an equitable portion of the home’s value which was preserved, maintained or appreciated by his efforts. The Montana Supreme Court expressed no opinion on what that value was, and provided little guidance for future cases that don’t exactly match this scenario. But, this case provides an excellent review of premarital property in Montana divorce and gives us divorce attorneys a little more to go on.
