Case Title: MARRIAGE OF JONES

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-171

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-171 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MAUREEN F. JONES, Petitioner and Appellant, -vs- ALAN R . JONES, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Jefferson, The Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Smith Law Firm, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Luxan and Murfitt, Helena, Montana Joscelyn, Honzel & Melby, Helena, Montana Filed: Submitted on Briefs: October 23, 1980 Decided: QEC 7 1980 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal by t h e p e t i t i o n e r from supplemental findings of f a c t , conclusions of law and decree of dissolu- t i o n entered by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of the F i f t h J u d i c i a l District, Jefferson County, the Honorable James D. Freebourn presiding. Appellant i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n seeking d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage, d i s t r i b u t i o n of property, apportionment of debts and determination of c h i l d custody, v i s i t a t i o n and support. O n August 13, 1979, a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n w a s entered; t h e court, however, reserved r u l i n g on a l l o t h e r issues. The p a r t i e s entered i n t o a property settlement agree- ment on August 6, 1979, d i s t r i b u t i n g p r o p e r t i e s , apportion- i n g debts, granting a p p e l l a n t custody of t h e minor c h i l d , s e t t i n g v i s i t a t i o n and f i x i n g c h i l d support. O n November 16, 1979, respondent brought a motion t o incorporate t h e agreement i n the c o u r t ' s f i n a l decree. Appellant, however, objected t o adoption of t h e v i s i t a t i o n provisions. After a hearing on t h e matter, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered a supplemental decree of d i s s o l u t i o n , incorporating i n t o t o t h e terms of the property settlement agreement. I n support of i t s decree, t h e c o u r t made t h e following findings of f a c t and conclusions of l a w : " I . FINDINGS OF FACT -- "1. That t h e Property Settlement Agreement entered i n t o between t h e p a r t i e s on o r about August 6 , 1979, i s f a i r and reasonable and not unconscionable; t h a t t h e s a m e makes adequate provision f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of the property of the p a r t i e s , t h e apportionment of t h e i r debts, the custody of t h e minor c h i l d , c h i l d support, and v i s i t a t i o n ; and t h a t t h e provi- sions of s a i d agreement as t o custody, c h i l d support and v i s i t a t i o n a r e i n the b e s t i n t e r - ests of t h e child. "2. That t h e same should be approved and-in- corporated i n t h e decree herein. "11. CONCLUSIONS O F LAW -- "1. That t h e Property Settlement Agreement made and entered i n t o between t h e p a r t i e s is f a i r and reasonable and i s n o t unconscionable. "2. That t h e terms of s a i d agreement a s t o c h i l d custody, c h i l d support and v i s i t a t i o n are i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d . " 3 . That t h e same should be incorporated i n t o a decree herein." Appellant r a i s e s t h e following i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n incorporating t h e property settlement agreement without making s p e c i f i c find- i n g s of f a c t regarding t h e impact of t h e v i s i t a t i o n provided f o r on t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d ? 2. Is t h e finding by t h e D i s t r i c t Court, t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n provisions of t h e property s e t t l e m e n t agreement a r e i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d , c l e a r l y erroneous and unsupported by t h e evidence? 3 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n r e f u s i n g t o permit examination of respondent's attorney? Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P., provides t h a t i n a l l a c t i o n s t r i e d upon t h e f a c t s without a jury the c o u r t i s under an obliga- t i o n t o i s s u e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of l a w . The purpose of t h e s e f i n d i n g s and conclusions i s t o provide a foundation f o r t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. Marriage of Barren (1978) , Mont. , 580 P.2d 936, 35 St.Rep. 891. This foundation need n o t c o n s i s t of a multitude of e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t s , b u t t h e findings of f a c t must set f o r t h a recordation of t h e e s s e n t i a l and determining f a c t s upon which t h e c o u r t r e s t e d i t s conclusions of law and without which t h e judgment would lack support. See Marriage of Barron, supra. Section 40-4-217, MCA, r e l a t e s t o v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s and implies a standard t h a t t h e s e r i g h t s be c o n s i s t e n t with t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d . To a s s u r e t h a t t h i s standard i s complied with, it i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t examine a l l p e r t i n e n t and r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s presented a t t r i a l . I n t h i s instance, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered a f i n d i n g of f a c t and a conclusion of law t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n provi- s i o n i n t h e property settlement agreement was i n t h e " b e s t i n t e r e s t of the child." The c o u r t i n so doing, however, f a i l e d t o set f o r t h a recordation of t h e e s s e n t i a l and determining f a c t s upon which it r e s t e d i t s conclusion. Adequate f i n d i n g s and conclusions a r e e s s e n t i a l f o r without them t h i s Court i s forced t o speculate a s t o t h e reasons f o r the District C o u r t ' s decision. Such a s i t u a t i o n i s n o t a healthy b a s i s f o r review. E s t a t e of Craddock (1977), 173 Mont. 8, 11, 566 P.2d 45, 46. W e acknowledge t h a t t h e findings of f a c t need only set f o r t h t h e u l t i m a t e f a c t s a s a foundation f o r i t s conclusions of law. The D i s t r i c t Court i n t h i s case, however, f a i l e d t o s e t f o r t h any supporting f a c t s and merely made a conclusory statement with no r e f l e c t i o n a t a l l a s t o t h e e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s f o r i t s decision. I n t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s do not r e f l e c t those f a c t o r s upon which t h e D i s t r i c t Court based i t s conclusion--that t h e property s e t t l e m e n t agreement, a s t o v i s i t a t i o n , i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e child--we cannot proceed on t h e appel- l a t e l e v e l t o determine t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h a t determination. With t h i s being t h e case, t h i s proceeding must be returned t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e purpose of making t h e required f a c t u a l findings. A s t o the offered testimony of Mark Murphy, respon- d e n t ' s f i r s t a t t o r n e y i n t h i s a c t i o n (who later withdrew), t h e D i s t r i c t Court refused t o allow h i s examination on t h e b a s i s t h a t the testimony sought was protected by t h e attorney- c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e . Appellant sought t o adduce testimony from Murphy a s t o various matters, including h i s observations t h a t respondent made d i s p l a y s of temper d i r e c t e d a t and i n t h e presence of a p p e l l a n t and t h e minor c h i l d . The a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e , s e c t i o n 26-1-803, MCA, p r o t e c t s communications made by t h e c l i e n t i n t h e course of t h e professional r e l a t i o n s h i p . I f a statement is made t o a number of persons o r within t h e i r hearing, however, it i s n o t c o n f i d e n t i a l and, t h e r e f o r e , i s n o t privileged. Ludwig v. Montana Bank and T r u s t Co. (1939), 109 Mont. 477, 500, 98 P.2d 377, 388; see a l s o S t a t e v. Wilder (1974), 12 Wash.App. 296, 529 P.2d 1109; Fisher v. M r . Harold's Hair Lab, Inc. (1974), 215 Kan. 515, 527 P.2d 1026; Nevada Tax Commission v. Hicks (1957), 73 Nev. 115, 310 P.2d 852; Anderson v. Thomas (1945), 108 Utah 252, 159 P.2d 142; Ver Bryck v. Luby (1945), 67 Cal.App.2d 842, 155 P.2d 706. I n t h i s case, t h a t testimony of Murphy, which r e l a t e s t o conversations and m a t t e r s occurring i n t h e presence of Murphy, respondent, and a t h i r d person, i s n o t p r i v i l e g e d . The D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n excluding it. The decree of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s vacated as it r e l a t e s t o v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . The case i s remanded f o r another hearing, and t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r appropriate findings and conclusions c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion. , , ' J u s t i c e We concur: % & 9 . @ - & # g Chief Justice C1yd-a ' , /j Justices