Montana Wife Agreed Husband Would Receive All Unlisted Assets

Montana case summary on property division in divorce.

In re the Marriage of Sharon Ann Harms and Charles Ronald Harms

The husband and wife in this Yellowstone County, Montana case were married in 1994.  Prior to marriage, the husband had substantial assets, and he received substantial additional amounts of gifted and inherited property.

When they divorced in 2019, they reached an agreement as to the distribution of their property.  Various assets were listed, and the final provision was that the husband would receive all remaining property.

After the divorce, the husband requested that the wife execute documents releasing her share of a $100,000 annuity, an asset that was not listed in the agreement.  The wife refused, and the husband took her back to court.  The husband asked the wife to be held in contempt, and the agreement enforced.  The trial court denied this motion, on the grounds that the asset was mistakenly omitted.  The husband appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.

After ruling that the issue was properly before the court, the high court turned to the merits of the case.

Under Montana law, settlement agreements in divorce cases are enforceable unless unconscionable. 

The court noted that the agreement was drafted in such a way as to identify the specific assets that would go to the wife, with all of the remaining assets going to the husband.  The wife was notified that she would receive particular property, and she did receive that property.

The Supreme Court noted that the wife was aware of the account, and there was no evidence that the husband attempted to conceal it.  Many other specific financial assets were also not identified.

Some items, such as silverware, were specifically identified, but the fact that these assets were mentioned by name did not mean that every other asset would need to be as well.

The wife cited a statute relating to reformation of contracts, but the high court held that this statute did not apply to judgments.  In particular, it noted that Rule 60 could, in the right case, be used to set aside a judgment, but that was not invoked in this case.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court held that the lower court committed error, and reversed the judgment. It also held that the husband was entitled to his attorney’s fees as prevailing party.  It did not reverse the lower court’s ruling that the wife was not in contempt, but warned her that she would be responsible for fees and costs if she failed to promptly transfer the asset in question.

No. DA 21-0278, 2022 MT 41 (Mont. Mar. 1, 2022).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce and view our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?