Case Title: JEROME v JEROME

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13664 IN THE S U P R E I . I E COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA JERRY T. JEROME, Petitioner and Respondent, DOROTHY S. JEROME, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Gord-on R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Dorothy Stevens, Pro Se, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Montana Cause submitted on briefs. Filed: Submitted: January 9, 1978 Decided: .FEB 1 - 1978 M r . Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court : This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting a dissolution of the marriage of Dorothy S. Jerome and Jerry T. Jerome. The portions of the decree i n issue are those relating t o child support, maintenance, and property distribution. The record reveals the parties were married December 11, 1952. Three children were born of the marriage; only one, a 12 year old g i r l , is still a minor. There i s no dispute that Dorothy should have custody of t h i s minor child. Jerry i s employed by Mountain Bell Telephone Company and has an annual income of between $18,000 and $19,000 per year, which is approximately the highest level he w i l l be able t o reach i n h i s present position. Dorothy has worked briefly a t secretarial types of positions, but has generally been a housewife for twenty-five years. The assets of the parties consist almost entirely of r e a l property. B y the f i n a l decree of dissolution, entered September 20, 1976, Dorothy was awarded the family home; a small home next door; and the proceeds of the sale of some partially de- veloped land, sold for about $8,000. Jerry was awarded an old mining claim costing about $30 and approximately s i x acres of land west of Helena, Montana. The court also awarded Dorothy child support i n the amount of $150 per month and monthly maintenance payments of $300 the f i r s t year, $200 the second yeaq and $100 the third year. A reevaluation of the maintenance issue is scheduled a f t e r the third year. Dorothy was represented by counsel a t the District Court but brings t h i s appeal pro se. The issues raised by Dorothy may be consolidatea into three classifications: (1) Error by the District Court i n failing t o consider various documents ; (2) Several alleged violations of Dorothy's constitu- tionally protected rights; and (3) Lack of evidence t o support the District Court's findings relating t o property distribution, maintenance and child support. Issue (1). Dorothy attached t o her brief on appeal various documents she prepared t o show the income and expenses of the parties, and the value of her services during the marriage. None of these documents were offered into evidence a t t r i a l , neither was there any offer of proof made regarding them. A s such, these documents a r e not a part of the record on appeal and w i l l not be considered by t h i s Court. Pillsbury v. Blumenthal, (1950), 58 N.M. 422, 272 P.2d 326. Issue (2). Dorothy c i t e s Sections 3, 9, 1 1 and 1 7 , Article 11, 1972 Montana Constitution and the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments t o the United States Constitution. She s t a t e s , with- out further explanation, that her rights under these provisions were violated by the District Court. W e note no such arguments were made i n the District Court either a t t r i a l or i n her various post t r i a l motions. Constitutional issues are waived i f not raised a t the e a r l i e s t opportunity. Johnson v. Doran, (1975), 167 Mont. 501, 511, 540 P.2d 306. Dorothy clearly has waived her right t o raise these issues before t h i s Court. Issue (3). This issue is whether the District Court abused its discretion i n the awards of child support and maintenance, and i n the f i n a l distribution of the property. The standard by which t h i s Court reviews such an action by the District Court was recently set forth i n Berthiaume v. Berthiaume , (1977) , - Mont . , 567 P.2d 1388, 34 St.Rep. 921, 924, citing Porter v. Porter, (1970), 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538: "* * * I n determining whether the t r i a l court abused its discretion, the question is not whether the reviewing court agrees with the t r i a l court, but, rather, did the t r i a l court i n the exercise of its discretion a c t a r b i t r a r i l y without the employment of conscientious judgment o r exceed the bounds of reason, i n view of a l l the circumstances, ignoring recognized principles resulting i n substantial injustice ." W e have reviewed the entire record and find no abuse of discretion by the District Court. There was no error. The judgment is af f irmed. W e Concur: 4 Justices