Case Title: GRANT v GRANT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12679 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 BERNICE Q. G R A N T , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - HARRY H. GRANT, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley and Honorable Nat Allen, Judges presiding. Counse 1 of Record : For Appellant : Small, Cumins, Hatch and Gregory Jackson, Helena, Montana Gregory Jackson argued and Carl Hatch appeared, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Landoe, Gary and Donald E. White, Bozeman, Montana Joseph B. Gary argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: November 20, 1974 Decided: FEB 1 9 1975 Filed: FEB ' ; 9 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal from a divorce judgment entered September 1 0 , 1973, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County. The appeal is from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment awarding t h e wife alimony, c h i l d support, a t t o r n e y f e e s and property. The c o u r t awarded t h e wife a divorce and custody of f o u r minor c h i l d r e n ; $100 per month alimony, $400 per month c h i l d support and $400 a t t o r n e y f e e s . It f u r t h e r awarded t h e wife a l o t owned j o i n t l y ; one half i n t e r e s t i n t h e back wages owed t h e husband by Intercounty Development Corporation; t h e 1970 Mercury automobile j o i n t l y owned, and an antique bar. The c o u r t ordered t h e husband t o c a r r y t h e necessary h e a l t h and medical insurance f o r and on behalf of t h e wife and t h e minor c h i l d r e n and t o pay a l l f u t u r e medical and d e n t a l expenses incurred by t h e wife and minor c h i l d r e n . Husband was a l s o ordered t o pay t h e remainder of t h e d e b t s and l i a b i l i t i e s c u r r e n t l y due and owing as a r e s u l t of t h e marriage. . The wife was awarded t h e personal possessions and household f u r n i s h i n g s of t h e p a r t i e s , together with personal possession of c l o t h i n g of t h e minor c h i l d r e n . The record r e v e a l s t h a t i n 1971 husband earned $14,000 and i n 1972 he earned $15,000. H e i s now employed a t Employment Link and n e t s $660 per month. H e claims he personally needs $100 per month f o r r e n t and $100 per month f o r food; and, t h a t he is i n need of a c a r f o r h i s employment; t h a t i n consideration of t h e amount of money he now makes, he is unable t o pay a l l t h e family d e b t s and still make t h e $500 per month alimony-child support payments. The husband a l s o claims he l a c k s t h e necessary t r a i n i n g and education t o o b t a i n a b e t t e r paying job, and t h e job he now has i s t h e b e s t employment a v a i l a b l e t o him a t t h i s time. The wife has had s e v e r a l q u a r t e r s of c o l l e g e , has been employed a t various jobs and has been licensed a s a nursing home administrator, such l i c e n s e has expired. She is not presently employed but is seeking employment t h a t w i l l n e t more than $300, t h e amount necessary f o r baby sitter f e e s . Husband paid only $300 of t h e $500 alimony-child support payment f o r August and only $100 i n September. O n October 12, 1973, he f i l e d n o t i c e of appeal of t h e f i n a l judgment. Contempt proceedings and an order t o show cause were brought a g a i n s t t h e husband and set f o r hearing October 15, 1973. A t t h e hearing testimony was taken and husband's counsel withdrew from t h e case. It was established t h a t t h e wife has been given welfare a s s i s - tance and c h a r i t y from neighbors and f r i e n d s . The husband main- t a i n e d he could not pay $500 per month o u t of h i s income, with h i s obligations. The d i s t r i c t judge a t t h i s point s a i d : "I am ready t o modify t h i s decree r i g h t now." and then f u r t h e r s a i d it would c o s t $1500 t o reverse h i s c o u r t by appeal. A minute e n t r y and order were entered October 15, 1973 holding husband i n contempt and ordering him t o purge himself by paying $250 on o r before October 18, 1973 and a l i k e sum on t h e f i r s t day of each month t h e r e a f t e r . Husband r e t a i n e d new counsel October 2 4 , 1973 and on t h a t day t h e new counsel d i s q u a l i f i e d t h e presiding judge and f i l e d n o t i c e of appeal of both the judgment of September 10 and October 15, 1973. Thereafter, on November 23, 1973, husband f i l e d a p e t i t i o n with t h e c o u r t t o c l a r i f y t h e judgment dated October 15, 1973. The d i s q u a l i f i e d judge c a l l e d i n a judge from another d i s t r i c t on November 28, 1973 and t h a t judge accepted j u r i s d i c t i o n on December 3, 1973. Appellant husband brings t h i s appeal from both judgments and presents these t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Were t h e findings of t h e c o u r t regarding alimony, support, and property settlement j u s t i f i e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence? 2. Did t h e c o u r t err i n awarding p l a i n t i f f wife a t t o r n e y f e e s ? 3. Are t h e Montana s t a t u t e s governing t h e award of alimony and attorney f e e s i n divorce a c t i o n s unconstitutional? Rule 38, M.R.App.Civ.P., r e q u i r e s t h a t when t h e s t a t e of Montana o r its agencies o r employees a r e not p a r t i e s t o a s u i t , t h e appellant must, upon f i l i n g t h e record, give immed- i a t e n o t i c e i n writing t o t h e Supreme Court of t h e existence of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l questions, specifying t h e s e c t i o n of t h e code o r chapter of t h e session law t o be construed so t h a t t h e Court can n o t i f y t h e attorney general of t h e s t a t e of Montana. F a i l - u r e t o comply with t h i s r u l e prevents t h e n o t i c e from being given t h e attorney general and therefore he has no opportunity t o appear and defend t h e a c t s of t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e . Under t h e s e circumstances t h i s Court w i l l not proceed t o answer t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l questions as Rule 3 8 , M.R.App.Civ.P., was n o t followed. The record i n t h i s case is not extensive and portrays t h e general problems found i n divorce proceedings where t h e r e a r e minor children and not enough money t o s a t i s f y t h e needs of a l l p a r t i e s and hence no solution i s going t o be e n t i r e l y s a t i s - factory t o t h e p a r t i e s inasmuch as such s o l u t i o n s under t h e s e conditions j u s t do not e x i s t . W e a r e bound i n cases involving minor children t o look f o r a s o l u t i o n which w i l l serve t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s , as is done i n awarding custody i n t h e f i r s t instance, s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947. There a r e a number of reported cases concerning t h e same p r i n c i p l e by t h i s Court during 1974. W e find no abuse of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e f i r s t award of a d o l l a r amount t o t h e family of $500 per month based on t h e needs of four minor children. W e a l s o recognize t h a t t h e f a t h e r apparently cannot pay t h a t amount a t t h i s t i m e a s t h e t r i a l judge found i n t h e second proceeding and reduced t h e amount t o $250 per month f o r t h e i r support u n t i l f u r t h e r order of t h e court. Therefore, we hold t h e o r i g i n a l judgment entered September 1 0 , 1973 t o have been modified by t h e judgment entered October 15, 1973, which provides a monthly payment of $250 f o r t h e support of t h e minor children u n t i l a f u r t h e r order of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , based on a change of circumstances from those t h a t e x i s t i n t h e record before t h i s Court. The wife i s awarded $200 attorney f e e s f o r t h i s appeal. I n view of t h e f i n a n c i a l con- d i t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l schedule payment t o conform t o the a b i l i t y of t h e husband t o make s u i t a b l e pay- ments. # J u s t i c e W e concur: . C . - 1 I ' I . . - L - & h & c - L : - - * h L - 3 - ~ - & ----- I J u s t i c e s