Case Title: DOWNS v DOWNS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA No. 14514 G L A D Y S T H E L M A D O W N S , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, v. R O B E R T FRED D O W N S , Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R This Court having considered t h e p e t i t i o n f o r rehearing and t h e p e t i t i o n f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n f i l e d by a p p e l l a n t i n t h e above e n t i t l e d cause, t h e Opinion of t h i s Court i s amended a s follows: Page 7 is d e l e t e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y (except f o r s i g n a t u r e s ) and t h e following paragraphs a r e t o be i n s e r t e d i n i t s place: The f i n a l matter f o r consideration i s d i r e c t e d a t t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount of $50,000. The record d i s c l o s e s it w a s s t i p u l a t e d and agreed t o by counsel f o r both respondent and a p p e l l a n t t h a t respondent's a t t o r n e y f e e s were t o be paid by t h e respondent, M r s . Downs, o u t of any judgment received by her. Therefore, t h e cases of t h i s Court c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t , Crncevich v. Georgetown Recreation Corp. (1975), 168 Mont. 113, 541 P.2d 56; F i r s t S e c u r i t y Bank of Bozeman v. Tholkes (1976), 169 Mont. 422, 547 P.2d 1328; and I n re Marriage of Barron (1978), Mont. , 580 P.2d 936, 35 St.Rep. 891, a r e n o t ap- p l i c a b l e . Therefore, t h e f e e s set by Judge Gulbrandson and agreed t o by s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , t o be paid by respondent, M r s . Downs, a r e approved. The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. The p e t i t i o n f o r rehearing is hereby denied. DATED t h i s day of April, 1979. X L d ! We.&' CMef J u s t i c e M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy did not p a r t i c i p a t e . No. 14514 I N THE SUPRTDE c o w O F T H E : S T A T E O F m m 1979 G L A D Y S TiBlNA D O W N S , Plaintiff and Respondent, R O m FRED m s , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal f m : District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Hon. L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Mbert L. Stephens, Jr., Billings, Mntana Hibbs, Sweeney & Colberg, Billings, rJbntana For Respondent: Lucas and Pbnaghan, Miles City, mntana Jams E. Seykora, Hardin, Mntana Suhitted on briefs: February 16, 1979 Decided: i!f(fl"- : : c 7 ~ Filed: i ' 2 7 f M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison 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 Robert Downs from a judgment entered i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Big Horn County, Montana, t h e Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson presiding. This case was previously before t h i s Court i n 1976 wherein on appeal w e reversed t h e judgment of t h e lower c o u r t and ordered a new t r i a l concerning t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l property. See Downs v. Downs (1976), 170 Mont. 150, 551 P.2d 1025. The f a c t s i t u a t i o n i s set f o r t h i n t h e above c i t e d a c t i o n and w i l l s e r v e f o r t h e f a c t s i n t h i s case. Appellant s e t s f o r t h four i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n f a i l i n g t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law concerning t h e elements s p e c i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 48-321, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-202 M C A ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n e n t e r i n g a judgment which contained m a t e r i a l variances from i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law? 3 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s ? 4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n making an award of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s without evidence of amount o r reasonableness? W e note t h a t t h r e e of t h e i s s u e s concern whether o r n o t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e a s s e t s of t h e marriage. W e w i l l d i s c u s s t h e s e i s s u e s together. This Court, i n r e t u r n i n g t h e f i r s t appeal, noted t h e u n r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e record a s t o t h e n e t worth of appel- l a n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e marriage and a t t h e time of t h e divorce. For t h i s reason t h e judgment i n t h e e a r l i e r t r i a l was set a s i d e . I t i s a l s o t o be noted t h a t counsel on appeal is n o t t h e same counsel t h a t t r i e d e i t h e r of t h e c a s e s below b u t appears here only a s counsel of record on ap2eal. The c a s e was remanded t o t h e lower c o u r t t o d e t e r - mine t h e t r u e n e t worth of a p p e l l a n t a t t h e time of h i s marriage. I n again reviewing t h i s record a f t e r two years, w e note t h a t e f f o r t s were made t o schedule t h e matter f o r t r i a l on two s e p a r a t e occasions. Additional discovery was accom- p l i s h e d and new testimony and documentary evidence has been introduced f o r our consideration on t h i s second hearing. Appellant's main t h r u s t on appeal i s t h a t t h e lower c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t s e t t i n g f o r t h s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t , con- c l u s i o n s of law, and t h a t t h e record does n o t support t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law. W e observe t h a t throughout both t h e f i r s t and t h e second hearing, a p p e l l a n t w a s n e i t h e r eager nor h e l p f u l i n giving t h e t r i a l c o u r t s u f f i c i e n t information concerning h i s n e t worth a t t h e t i m e of t h e marriage i n 1956. Throughout t h e two-year period it was respondent who seems t o have made t h e e f f o r t s t o l o c a t e , uncover and discover a p p e l l a n t ' s a s s e t s a t t h e time of t h e marriage. Two depositions were taken of a p p e l l a n t t o s o l i c i t t h e information needed t o e s t a b l i s h t h e a s s e t s a t t h e time of t h e marriage and a t t h e time of t h e divorce. I t appears from t h e record t h a t appel- l a n t made l i t t l e e f f o r t and was r e s i s t a n t t o t h e e f f o r t s of respondent i n acquiring t h e information needed t o decide t h e question of a s s e t s . W e do n o t f e e l t h a t t h e t r i a l judge must become an a p p r a i s e r , an accountant, a computer, and an all-around genius t o appropriately decide t h e f a c t s a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e documentation given a t trial. I t i s t h e p a r t i e s ' d u t i e s t o a s s i s t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n g e t t i n g t h i s information s o a proper judgment i s made a s t o t h e i r mutual a s s e t s . The elements f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s consideration i n making a d i s p o s i t i o n of m a r i t a l property a r e d e t a i l e d i n s e c t i o n 48-321, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-202 MCA. This Court has held i n a number of r e c e n t c a s e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t must make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s concerning t h e value of t h e p a r t i e s ' a s s e t s a t t h e time of marriage and a t t h e t i m e of d i s s o l u t i o n . Appellant sets f o r t h a number of cases: I n re Marriage of Jorgenson (1979), Mont . - P.2d , 36 St.Rep. 233; Vivian v. Vivian (1978), Mont. , 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359; Capener v. Capener (1978) Mont. , 582 P.2d 326, 35 St.Rep. 1026; and, I n r e Marriage of Johnsrud (1977), Mont. I 572 P.2d 902, 34 St.Rep. 1417. I n Jorgenson t h i s Court affirmed a D i s t r i c t Court d e c i s i o n which awarded t h e husband a s s e t s valued a t approxi- mately $693,000 and t h e wife a s s e t s valued a t approximately $83,000. There t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e l i e d upon t h e f a c t t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of t h e a s s e t s w e r e acquired by t h e husband p r i o r t o t h e marriage and had increased i n value s o l e l y by reason of i n f l a t i o n . Jorgenson can be f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h e p r e s e n t case. I n Jorgenson most of t h e assets of t h e husband had been given t o him by h i s f a t h e r p r i o r t o t h e marriage. I n t h i s c a s e t h e base of a p p e l l a n t ' s wealth occurred i n t h e swapping of and purchas- i n g of farm property. A t t h e t i m e of t h e marriage t h e value could not have been more than approximately $120,000. I t was on t h i s b a s i c a c q u i s i t i o n of property t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s a b l e t o develop an e s t a t e t h a t , a t t h e t i m e of t h e separa- t i o n and divorce, w a s valued a t over two m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . W e hold t h a t Jorgenson i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s m a t t e r , b u t r a t h e r look t o another r e c e n t c a s e of t h i s Court, Robertson v. Robertson (1978), Mont. 590 P.2d 113, 35 St.Rep. 1889. I n Robertson w e found t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t weigh t h e f a c t o r s enumerated i n s e c t i o n 48-321, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-202 MCA, i n consider- i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e a s s e t s of t h e couple; nor was t h e r e any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t assessed t h e value of t h e t o t a l m a r i t a l e s t a t e and made an e f f o r t t o equitably apportion it. H e r e , we have a s i t u a t i o n where t h e t r i a l c o u r t c a r e f u l l y weighed a l l t h e f a c t o r s involved i n assessing t h e value of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . I t made a v a l i a n t attempt t o equitably apportion t h e a s s e t s even though it was n o t given t h e f u l l support of a p p e l l a n t i n a s c e r t a i n i n g those a s s e t s . A t t r i a l respondent, through her a t t o r n e y , gave t h e t r i a l c o u r t a breakdown showing t h e a s s e t s a t t h e t i m e of t h e f i r s t t r i a l , a t t h e second t r i a l , and a t t h e d a t e of marriage, by both testimony and documentary evidence. The f i g u r e s show t h a t , a t t h e time of h i s marriage, a p p e l l a n t ' s a s s e t s were valued somewhere between $92,035.57 and $132,610. These a s s e t s increased i n value during t h e marriage t o $2,500,000. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d a l l it was required t o do under t h e s t a t u t e t o determine t h e a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s involved. W e f i n d no e r r o r . Appellant argues t h a t t h e r e a r e g r e a t variances among t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment which a r e n o t supported by t h e record. W e f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s argument. he record r e v e a l s t h a t both p a r t i e s w e r e uncer- t a i n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law. Several documents were f i l e d before t h e c o u r t t o amend i t s conclusions and t o c l a r i f y some of t h e i s s u e s , On June 1, 1978, an instrument was executed by t h e then a t t o r n e y s and f i l e d on June 5, 1978, giving t h e t r i a l c o u r t power t o determine a l l matters r e l a t i n g t o t h e f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n based on t h e hearing of June 1, 1978. The c o u r t made i t s f i n a l judgment based upon amended conclusions. This judgment does n o t show s u f f i c i e n t variance from t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law a s t o n e c e s s i t a t e a rehearing. W e next consider whether o r n o t t h e e f f e c t of t h e decree d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s i s i n con- formity with p r e s e n t law. There a r e s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s here, under s e c t i o n 48-321, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-202 MCA, t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t assessed t h e value of t h e t o t a l m a r i t a l e s t a t e and d i d i t s b e s t t o equitably apportion t h e same. The f i n d i n g s and conclusions r e f l e c t a n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce. Although t h e r e were s m a l l v a r i a t i o n s concerning t h e p r i n c i p l e and payments on a promissory note, t h i s does n o t change t h e b a s i c f i n d i n g of t h e value of t h e property a t t h e time of t h e marriage and value a t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce. Appellant argues t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t take i n t o con- s i d e r a t i o n t h e t a x consequences of i t s judgment. W e f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s argument. The c o u r t c a r e f u l l y considered t h e testimony given by M r . Bob White, a t a x e x p e r t , his testi- mony d i d n o t i n any way d e f e a t t h e type of property s e t t l e - ment made here by t h e t r i a l court. The f i n a l m a t t e r f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h e award of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . Pursuant t o a s t i p u l a t i o n between counsel i n t h i s m a t t e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t awarded a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n t h e amount of $50,000. Appellant argues t h a t r e c e n t c a s e s of t h i s Court hold t h a t a showing must b e made on t h e rea- sonableness of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . Crncevich v. Georgetown Recreation Corp. (1975), 168 Mont. 113, 541 P.2d 56; F i r s t S e c u r i t y Bank of Bozeman v. Tholkes (1976), 169 Mont. 422, 547 P.2d 1328; and, I n re Marriage of Barron (1978), Mont. , 580 P.2d 936, 35 St.Rep. 891. Respondent argues t h a t counsel, by s t i p u l a t i o n and by a copy of a letter t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , gave t h e t r i a l judge t h e power t o award a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , a s he d i d i n t h e judgment. I n t h e above c i t e d c a s e s , t h i s Court h e l d t h a t a hearing must be h e l d on a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . The m a t t e r i s t h e r e f o r e r e t u r n e d f o r t h a t purpose. Judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e m e r i t s is affirmed. The cause i s remanded t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y hearing t o determine a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . P W e concur: J u s t i c e s