--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2025 WL 1880287 (Fort Peck C.A.)
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Fort Peck Court of Appeals,
ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES.
FORT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION.
POPLAR, MONTANA.
In the Matter of: BEAU GRANDBOIS, Appellant,
v.
ALEXANDRIA HERALD Appellee.
CAUSE NO. AP #888
|
JULY 07, 2025
ORDER GRANTING LIMITED REMAND FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
Erin Shanley, Chief Justice
¶1 This matter came before the Fort Peck Appellate Court on a Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant, Mr. Grandbois, challenging the property and debt division order of the lower court in his decree of divorce. He asserts that the lower court erred by awarding the Appellee almost all marital property, even property she did not ask for at hearing.
¶2 On June 27, 2024 Ms. Herald filed for divorce from the Appellant. In her complaint she asked that the Court promptly divide the marital assets because she was concerned about the Appellant’s alleged drug use. Initial hearing was held before the Chief Judge below on August 5, 2024 with Ms. Herald appearing at hearing with Mr. Robert Welch and the Appellant appearing pro se. The Court entered its decree of divorce on August 6, 2024. but deferred on the issues of custody and distribution of martial property until further hearing could be held on September 11, 2024.
¶3 The Tribal Court held a further hearing on October 15, 2024 with Associate Judge Lilley presiding. At that hearing the Court heard from both parties on the issues of custody and property division and by order dated January 31. 2025, the Appellee was awarded sole legal custody of the two minor children of the Parties and also awarded all martial property except for the Appellant’s automotive tools and a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado. The award to the Appellee included the marital home in Poplar, all outbuildings, a trailer, two automobiles, an ATV, and all home furnishings. The Appellant was apparently running his business out of the trailer which he claims is his property and should not have been included as marital property due to the title being issued only to him. He also asserts on appeal that the lot where the house is located was used by him for his business and was improved by him during the marriage and that he should have received that property. The modified decree of divorce awarding martial property does not allocate value to the property awarded each party and also does not explain why the property allocation was issued the way it was.
¶4 When hearing dissolution actions where there is a claim of fault by one spouse against the other it is within the discretion of the lower court to award the marital property based upon that fault. Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 305 directs the Court to make an equitable division of marital property. In making that division however it is important that the lower court make findings on what equitable principles are being utilized in awarding the property and in addition assess the relative value of the property to permit an appellate court to address whether the Court has abused its discretion in awarding the property.
¶5 In this case the Appellant argues that the Court abused its discretion in awarding almost all the marital property and some of his individual property to his ex-wife in the decree of divorce. He also argues that the Appellee did not even ask that she be awarded the trailer where he conducted his business. In order to fully assess these claims this Cour finds that a remand to the lower court to issue further findings regarding the value of the property and equitable reasons the property was awarded to each party is the appropriate remedy.
WHEREFORE this mater shall be remanded to the lower court for the issuance of further findings of fact regarding the martial property divisions that conforms to this decision.
SO ORDERED the 7th day of July 2025.
FORT PECK COURT OF APPEALS
All Citations
--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2025 WL 1880287