Case Title: MARRIAGE OF MABERRY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-08-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14624 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: JOYCE M. MABERRY, Petitioner and Respondent, -VS- RAY G. MABERRY, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John M. McCarvel, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Marra, Wenz, Iwen and Johnson, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: June 29, 1979 Decided : AUG 1 3 1919 Filed: . , I -S G1.,'C : 3 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by respondent (husband) from t h e decree of divorce and d i v i s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l estate and d e n i a l of a motion f o r a new t r i a l i n t h e District Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Cascade. The p a r t i e s w e r e married over 20 y e a r s ago and a t t h e t i m e of t h e i r marriage had l i t t l e o r no a s s e t s . Three c h i l d r e n w e r e born of t h e marriage: Donna, now 2 1 y e a r s o l d ; ~ i m o t h y , now 18 y e a r s of age; and Thomas, now 17 y e a r s of age and re- s i d i n g away from both p a r e n t s . Timothy has a l e a r n i n g d i s - a b i l i t y , i s b o r d e r l i n e r e t a r d e d and has p e t i t mal e p i l e p s y and r e s i d e s with h i s mother. P e t i t i o n e r (wife) i s 4 1 y e a r s o l d and has been a f u l l - t i m e housewife s i n c e 1957. She i s i n good h e a l t h and has done part-time work s i n c e t h e p a r t i e s separated i n 1977, w i t h average earnings of $148 per month. Respondent i s 4 3 y e a r s o l d , able-bodied, has worked s t e a d i l y f o r 20 y e a r s a s a c a r p e n t e r and has been self-employed s i n c e 1977. H i s earnings have s t e a d i l y increased, and from D e c e m - b e r 15, 1977, t o May 15, 1978 ( f i v e months), h i s earnings w e r e $18,018 with business expenses of about $4,120. A l l property of t h e p a r t i e s has been accumulated during t h e mar- r i a g e . The a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s c o n s i s t o f : Real: Home i n Great F a l l s valued a t $62,000, minus a mortgage of $9,941.08; c a b i n a t Lincoln, Montana, valued a t $45,000 w i t h no l i e n s thereon. Personal: 1976 Ford Granada, l i e n $2,251.26; 1975 Ford 3/4 t o n pickup, l i e n $1,500; t h r e e snowmobiles; two pool t a b l e s ; and, a boat. The D i s t r i c t Court found: 1. The b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d under t h e d i s a b i l i t y , Timothy, would be served i n h i s mother's custody with rea- sonable v i s i t a t i o n remaining i n respondent. 2. P e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d t o $300 maintenance f o r a period of two years t o r e a d j u s t back i n t o t h e labor market. 3 . Respondent should pay $100 per month f o r t h e c a r e and support of Timothy together with a l l reasonable medical, doctor, h o s p i t a l , d e n t a l , and o p t i c a l expenses incurred on behalf of Timothy u n t i l he becomes self-supporting. 4. The exclusive use of t h e G r e a t F a l l s home t o p e t i - t i o n e r and she must pay taxes, insurance, e t c . Respondent i s t o make t h e $200 a month payment u n t i l Timothy leaves t h e residence. The residence should then be s o l d and t h e n e t s a l e s proceeds divided equally between t h e p a r t i e s except t h a t re- spondent may deduct $100 o r one-half of t h e monthly payments paid by him on behalf of p e t i t i o n e r u n t i l t h e d a t e of s a l e , before t h e n e t d i v i s i o n between t h e p a r t i e s . The cabin a t Lincoln i s t o be s o l d and t h e n e t proceeds divided equally between t h e par ties. 5. The Ford Granada should go t o p e t i t i o n e r and t h e pickup t o t h e respondent, each t o make t h e payments on t h e balance due on t h e i r vehicle. 6. One snowmobile w a s given t o p e t i t i o n e r and two snow- mobiles t o respondent. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e two pool t a b l e s and boat went t o respondent. 7. Each p a r t y was t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . The husband p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review by t h i s Court: 1. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t respon- d e n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l ? 2. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n ordering c h i l d support payments t o be paid by respondent when no minor c h i l d re- s i d e s with p e t i t i o n e r ? 3. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a n e t worth of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e p r i o r t o g r a n t i n g main- tenance t o p e t i t i o n e r ? The motion f o r new t r i a l was properly denied by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Section 25-11-103, MCA. This s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s demonstration of grounds set f o r t h i n subsections ( I ) , ( 3 ) , and ( 4 ) of s e c t i o n 25-11-102, MCA. This standard has n o t been pleaded o r proved i n t h e record before t h i s Court. It i s p u b l i c policy i n Montana t o r e q u i r e p a r e n t s t o c a r e f o r c h i l d r e n who a r e s u f f e r i n g from d i s a b i l i t y and unable t o c a r e f o r themselves i f t h e p a r e n t s a r e a b l e t o do so. See a l s o s e c t i o n 40-4-204, MCA. There a r e a l s o numer- ous treatises supporting t h i s p o s i t i o n . The Uniform Mar- r i a g e and Divorce Act adopted i n Montana supports t h i s p o s i t i o n . There i s no evidence i n t h e record t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h e n e t worth of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e p r i o r t o g r a n t i n g maintenance t o p e t i t i o n e r . Finding no e r r o r o r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. We concur: Chief justice % Q ? . %4/ Justices