Case Title: MARRIAGE OF VIVIAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 8 0 - 3 3 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 0 I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF ELIZABETH PEARL VIVIAN, P e t i t i o n e r a d R e s p o n d e n t , VS . ROBERT WILBER VIVIAN, R e s p o n d e n t and A p p e l l a n t . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and for t h e C o u n t y of Silver Bow. H o n o r a b l e Frank E . B l a i r , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : M c C a f f e r y and P e t e r s o n , B u t t e , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : Joseph E n g e l , 111, B u t t e , M o n t a n a Submitted on briefs: A p r i l 2 5 , 1 9 8 0 D e c i d e d : JUL 2 - 1980 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of t h e Court. The i s s u e i n t h i s case i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court, County of s i l v e r Bow, abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n ordering appel- l a n t t o pay h i s former wife $200 per month maintenance pursuant t o a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage. The marriage of Robert Wilber Vivian and Elizabeth P e a r l Vivian was dissolved i n 1977 by a decree of t h e D i s - t r i c t Court. Wife appealed from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s - t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l property and award of maintenance, and t h i s Court reversed and remanded f o r a new trial. Vivian v. Vivian (1978), Mont. , 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359. I n our p r i o r opinion, we held t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court had f a i l e d t o determine t h e n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s and make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s t o support t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l a s s e t s ; had e r r e d i n deducting t h e husband's i n h e r i t a n c e from t h e value of t h e home p r i o r t o dividing the m a r i t a l property; and t h a t because t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n was reversed, t h e award of maintenance would a l s o have t o be reversed because " [ t l h e r u l e i s t h a t the needs of t h e spouse a s t o maintenance and t h e reasonableness of such an award can only be properly determined a f t e r t h e r e has been an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . " Vivian v. Vivian, supra, 583 P.2d a t 1075, 35 St.Rep. a t 1362. After a new t r i a l following remand, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered findings of f a c t and conclusions of law on June 26, 1979. The husband challenged these f i n d i n g s and conclusions and a d d i t i o n a l hearings w e r e held on August 8, 1979 and on August 30, 1979. The D i s t r i c t Court issued i t s f i n a l amended f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, together with an accompanying memorandum on September 7, 1979, and t h e amended judgment and decree w a s f i l e d on October 23, 1979. The D i s t r i c t Court ultimately found t h e n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s t o be $47,500.55 a t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce and determined t h a t t h e wife owed medical b i l l s of $1,025.70 and f u r t h e r indebtedness of $5,000 p l u s i n t e r e s t on a bank loan. The m a r i t a l property was divided equally, based on t h e w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n a s a homemaker f o r nearly t h i r t y yc.ars, with each p a r t y t o r e c e i v e $23,750. The husband was ordered t o pay t h e wife $200 per month maintenance. Husband was given t h e option of s a t i s f y i n g t h e w i f e ' s share of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e by payment of a lump sum of $23,750 o r by paying $8,509.73 cash and t h e balance of $15,240 over t e n y e a r s a t $184.90 per month, which includes 8 percent annual i n t e r e s t on t h e balance due. The p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e : I That P e t i t i o n e r , Elizabeth P e a r l Vivian i s now 59 y e a r s o l d and has no formal t r a i n i n g f o r any type of employment o u t s i d e t h e home. "IV That P e t i t i o n e r has r e c e n t l y undergone major surgery and i s convalescing therefrom; t h a t p r i o r t o her surgery she w a s i n extremely poor health, s u f f e r i n g from d i a b e t e s and high blood pressure and was mentally and p h y s i c a l l y incapable of working. That P e t i t i o n e r s t i l l s u f f e r s from hypertension, weakness and dia- b e t e s and she i s s t i l l under a Doctor's c a r e f o r hypertension and diabetes. "VII That t h e Respondent, Robert Vivian i s an able-bodied man, age 57, employed by t h e Mon- tana Power Company i n Butte and earns a gross income of $1,740.00 per month. " V I I I That t h e only source of income P e t i t i o n e r now has is t h e temporary support which t h e Montana Supreme Court ordered Respondent t o pay i n t h e sum of $200.00 per month and t h a t it w a s e s t a b l i s h e d during t h e hearing t h a t t h i s was inadequate t o meet her modest needs and support. "XI1 That when P e t i t i o n e r has paid [her debts] she w i l l have remaining about $17,724.30 from t h e m a r i t a l assets a l l o c a t e d t o her hereunder. The Court f i n d s t h a t s a i d sum i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o provide f o r ordinary and reasonable needs, t h e P e t i t i o n e r being unable t o support h e r s e l f by employment i n any of t h e ways suggested by Respondent, o r a t a l l . "That i n consideration of a l l of t h e f a c t s i n t h i s case t h e Court f i n d s it f a i r , e q u i t a b l e and j u s t t h a t Respondent pay maintenance f o r P e t i t i o n e r i n t h e amount of $200.00 per month u n t i l t h e f u r t h e r order of t h i s Court, s a i d payments t o commence t h e 15th day of t h e month succeeding t h e d a t e of the e n t r y of t h e amended judgment i n t h i s a c t i o n . " The w i f e ' s needs and t h e D i s t r i c t Court's reasoning f x r twarding her maintenance a r e f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d i n t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t ' s memoranda f i l e d August 20, 1979 and September 7, 1979. O n appeal, t h e husband urges t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding h i s former wife $200 p e r month i n maintenance. H e contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o consider t h e elements of a maintenance award and by f a i l i n g t o adopt f i n d i n g s of f a c t regarding t h e a b i l i t y of t h e husband t o pay, t h e a b i l i t y of the wife t o work, and t h e w i f e ' s needs a f t e r receiving her h a l f of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . Respondent wife challenges t h e District Court's f i n d i n g as t o her indebtedness, arguing t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h a t she owes $5,000 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and i n reducing her maintenance from t h e o r i g i n a l award of $250 per month t o $200 per month. W e f i n d t h e s e contentions t o be without substance. The p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r a maintenance award are set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 40-4-203, MCA: "Maintenance. (1) I n a proceeding f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage o r l e g a l separation o r a proceeding f o r maintenance following d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e mar- r i a g e by a c o u r t which lacked personal j u r i s d i c - t i o n over t h e absent spouse, t h e c o u r t may g r a n t a maintenance order f o r e i t h e r spouse only i f it f i n d s t h a t t h e spouse seeking maintenance: " ( a ) lacks s u f f i c i e n t property t o provide f o r h i s reasonable needs; and " ( b ) i s unable t o support himself through appro- p r i a t e employment o r i s the custodian of a c h i l d whose condition o r circumstances make it appro- p r i a t e t h a t t h e custodian n o t be required t o seek employment o u t s i d e t h e home. " ( 2 ) The maintenance order s h a l l be i n such amounts and f o r such periods of time a s t h e c o u r t deems j u s t , without regard t o m a r i t a l m i s - conduct, and a f t e r considering a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t s including: " ( a ) t h e f i n a n c i a l resources of t h e p a r t y seek- ing maintenance, including m a r i t a l property ap- portioned t o him, and h i s a b i l i t y t o meet h i s needs independently, including t h e e x t e n t t o which a provision f o r support of a c h i l d l i v i n g with t h e p a r t y includes a sum f o r t h a t p a r t y a s custodian; " (b) t h e t i m e necessary t o acquire s u f f i c i e n t education o r t r a i n i n g t o enable t h e p a r t y seek- i n g maintenance t o f i n d appropriate employment; " ( c ) t h e standard of l i v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d during t h e marriage; " (d) t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e marriage; " ( e ) t h e age and t h e physical and emotional con- d i t i o n of t h e spouse seeking maintenance; and " ( f ) t h e a b i l i t y of t h e spouse from whom mainten- ance i s sought t o m e e t h i s needs while meeting those of t h e spouse seeking maintenance." An a f f i r m a t i v e showing must be made as a precondition t o the award of maintenance. Schultz v. ~ c h u l t z (1979), Mont. , 597 P.2d 1174, 1177, 36 St.Rep. 1330, 1333. Contrary t o a p p e l l a n t ' s contentions, t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n t h i s case made appropriate findings under s e c t i o n 40-4- 203(1), MCA, t h a t t h e wife ( a ) l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t property t o provide f o r her reasonable needs, even a f t e r t h e property d i s t r i b u t i o n , and (b) is unable t o support h e r s e l f through a p p r o p r i a t e employment. Thus, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n . These findings a r e supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence, and the wife sustained her burden of making an a f f i r m a t i v e showing. The f a c t s show t h a t t h e wife i s 59 years o l d , has n o t been employed o t h e r than as a homemaker f o r t h e p a s t t h i r t y years and has no t r a i n i n g f o r any employment, i s i n extremely poor h e a l t h , has no o u t s i d e income, i s over $6,000 i n d e b t , and t h a t t h e S t a t e of Montana has paid $8,200 of her outstanding medical b i l l s . Furthermore, a s evidenced by i t s f i n d i n g s and memoranda, t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly assessed a l l of t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s i n determining t h e amount and d u r a t i o n of t h e main- tenance award, including t h e considerations l i s t e d i n sec- t i o n 40-4-203(2), MCA, having made s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a s t o those f a c t s . Regarding t h e i s s u e of t h e husband's a b i l i t y t o pay, t h e D i s t r i c t Court s p e c i f i c a l l y found, " [ t l h a t t h e Respondent, Robert Vivian i s an able-bodied man, age 57, employed by the Montana Power Company i n Butte and e a r n s a g r o s s income of $1,740.00 per month." The c o u r t d i d n o t commit any e r r o r by f a i l i n g t o include a s p e c i f i c finding t h a t h i s n e t take-home pay was $1,159.87 p e r month o r t h a t h i s a l l e g e d monthly expenses t o t a l $1,090.89 per month. Likewise, while it i s t r u e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t go so f a r as t o draw up a monthly budget of t h e w i f e ' s reasonable needs a f t e r receiving her h a l f of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e , t o do so was unnecessary i n view of t h e amount of t h e property award, t h e w i f e ' s d e b t s , her nonexistent earn- ing capacity, her poor h e a l t h , her age, and her lack of o u t s i d e income o r a d d i t i o n a l a s s e t s . ~ p p e l l a n t ' s conten- t i o n t h a t t h e wife should be a b l e t o r e l y on t h e amortized property d i s t r i b u t i o n payments of $184.90 per month a s her s o l e source of income i s ludicrous. That such an amount is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o m e e t her needs i s supported by t h e w i f e ' s testimony t h a t she could n o t l i v e on $200 per month and by the District Court's observations in its memoranda. In addition, the wife testified to several items of support, those being her $50 per month rent at government assisted housing, her expenses for medication, and the cost of food, as well as her need for clothing, furnishings, eyeglasses and dental work. In summary, it can be said that the District Court adequately considered the wife's reasonable needs. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed with costs of this appeal assessed against ap We concur: Chief Justice & y $ d W 4 2 - & l ! L ustices