Case Title: MARRIAGE OF ROHRICH

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-009

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1984-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 84-09 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAbJA 1984 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PIUS H. ROHRICH, Petitioner and Appellant, and MARIAN ROHRICH, Respondent and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable H. William Coder, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: John F. Iwen, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Howard F. Strause, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 23, 1984 Decided: Filed: dUi1 0 :&+ - Clerk Mr. , J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s c a s e comes an a p p e a l from two o r d e r s o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court, E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, o r d e r i n g t h e husband t o pay t h e w i f e $1,000 i n i t i a l l y and $1,250 p e r month t h e r e a f t e r f o r temporary maintenance u n t i l a l l i s s u e s were r e s o l v e d i n t h e d i s p u t e , and d e s i g n a t i n g March 3 , 1983 as t h e v a l u a t i o n d a t e of t h e c o r o p o r a t e s t o c k of t h e p a r t i e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d i v i d i n g t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s . The District C o u r t a l s o gave t h e w i f e t h e r i g h t t o choose which s t o c k s h e would r e c e i v e a s p a r t of t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . W e a f f i r m . The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on J u n e 28, 1948. The husband f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n on March 30, 1982. On May 28, 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d t h e husband t o pay t h e w i f e $750 p e r month d u r i n g t h e pendency of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s and excluded t h e husband from t h e f a m i l y hone. On August 1 6 , 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h e husband i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g t o a b i d e by its o r d e r o f 28, 1982. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e husband had broken i n t o t h e f a m i l y home a n d t h r e a t e n e d t h e w i f e w i t h a r e v o l v e r . The p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n came on f o r h e a r i n g on November 1 8 , 1982, and on March 3 , 1983, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w . The f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t a r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s a p p e a l included t h e f o l l o w i n g ; t h a t t h e w i f e was u n a b l e t o s u p p o r t h e r s e l f ; t h e husband worked s t e a d i l y f o r Washington C o n s t r u c t i o n Company and e a r n e d $64,196.95 i n 1981; t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e t i m e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e w i f e t o be t r a i n e d and e d u c a t e d f o r employment, t h e age of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e husband's a b i l i t y t o pay, t h e w i f e should r e c e i v e $750 per month f o r t h r e e y e a r s ; due t o t h e v i o l e n t n a t u r e of t h e p a r t i e s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p it would be b e s t i f t h e r e was no f u t u r e c o n t a c t between t h e p a r t i e s ; t h e p a r t i e s owned numerous s h a r e s of c o r p o r a t e s t o c k ; i n r e t u r n f o r t h e w i f e g i v i n g up h e r r i g h t t o maintenance payments t h e w i f e would r e c e i v e t h e f i r s t $25,000 i n v a l u e of s t o c k and i f t h e p a r t i e s could n o t a g r e e on t h e v a l u e of t h e s t o c k it would be s o l d and d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g l y ; it was n o t n e c e s s a r y t o award t h e w i f e maintenance because s h e was being g r a n t e d a g r e a t e r s h a r e of t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s ; t h e p a r t i e s would e x e c u t e a l l i n s t r u m e n t s n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y o u t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e d e c r e e ; t h e w i f e was awarded a $27,837 l o a n t h a t had been made t o t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n . N e i t h e r p a r t y appealed from t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n . On March 1 3 , 1983, t h e w i f e made a motion t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court hold t h e husband i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g t o comply with t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n . The w i f e ' s motion was supported by an a f f i d a v i t i n which t h e w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e $27,837 t h a t had been loaned t o t h e c h i l d r e n and which was awarded t o her by t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n had been t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e p a r t i e s ' son who l i v e d o u t s i d e Montana. The w i f e a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t s h e had n o t r e c e i v e d h e r $750 maintenance payment f o r t h e month of February, 1983, a s r e q u i r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of May 28, 1982. On June 1 0 , 1983, t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a s t i p u l a t i o n whereby t h e husband would r e c e i v e t h e a s s e t denominated "Loan t o c h i l d r e n . . ." i n r e t u r n f o r which t h e w i f e would be awarded an equal amount i n v a l u e of c o r p o r a t e s t o c k . Subsequently, t h e p a r t i e s could n o t a g r e e upon a d a t e f o r v a l u a t i o n of t h e s t o c k . The w i f e argued t h e s t o c k should be valued a s of March 3 , 1983, t h e d a t e of t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n , whereas t h e husband argued a l a t e r d a t e should be used. A s a r e s u l t , t h e w i f e moved t h e District Court on June 20, 1983, t o hold a h e a r i n g t o determine t h e d a t e o f v a l u a t i o n o f t h e c o r p o r a t e s t o c k f o r p u r p o s e s o f d i s t r i b u t i o n . A t about t h e same time t h e w i f e asked t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o r e q u i r e t h e husband t o pay h e r immediately t h e sum of $1,000 u n t i l a h e a r i n g could be h e l d on t h e m a t t e r . According t o her accompanying a f f i d a v i t t h e w i f e a l l e g e d s h e had n o t r e c e i v e d any maintenance payments s i n c e J a n u a r y , 1983; t h e w i f e had been f o r c e d t o l i v e on w e l f a r e b e n e f i t s ; and t h e husband had e n c o u r a g e d t h e p a r t i e s 1 c h i l d r e n n o t t o c o o p e r a t e i n t h e d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l a s s e t s by n o t s i g n i n g s t o c k t r a n s f e r o r d e r s . Based upon t h e w i f e ' s a f f i d a v i t , t h e D i s t r i c t Court on August 1 2 , 1983, i s s u e d an e x p a r t e o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e husband t o immediately pay t h e w i f e $1,000 f o r temporary maintenance. Hearings were h e l d on J u l y 19 and September 1 6 , 1983, f o r t h e purpose of d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d a t e of v a l u a t i o n of t h e c o r p o r a t e s t o c k . From t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d a t t h o s e h e a r i n g s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d an o r d e r on September 29, 1983, i n which it determined t h a t t h e s t o c k would b e valued a s of March 3 , 1983, t h e d a t e t h e D i s t r i c t Court handed down t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n . I n i t s o r d e r t h e D i s t r i c t Court s t a t e d t h a t t o v a l u e t h e s t o c k on any o t h e r d a t e "would have t h e e f f e c t of undermining t h e e q u i t i e s which [ t h e D i s t r i c t Court] b u i l t i n t o i t s o r d e r . " The D i s t r i c t Court p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had e n t e r e d i n t o a n agreement whereby t h e husband had a g r e e d t o r e c e i v e as a n a s s e t t h e l o a n t o t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e amount o f $28,489 ( t h e o r i g i n a l amount p l u s i n t e r e s t ) i n exchange f o r g i v i n g t h e w i f e $28,489 i n v a l u e of s t o c k . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t had been informed t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s l o a n had been i n v e s t e d i n an i n t e r e s t b e a r i n g a c c o u n t and t h e r e f o r e t h e husband c o u l d c o l l e c t t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e $28,489 from March 3, 1983. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t noted t h a t t o a l l o w t h e husband t o a l s o r e c e i v e t h e b e n e f i t s from any i n c r e a s e i n t h e v a l u e of s t o c k s i n c e March 3, 1983 would i n e f f e c t g i v e him a d o u b l e b e n e f i t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s a i d it took i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was g a i n f u l l y employed and had a much g r e a t e r a b i l i t y t o b u i l d up a n e s t a t e b e f o r e he r e t i r e d t h a n d i d t h e w i f e . Thus, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e s t o c k immediately d i v i d e d w i t h t h e w i f e e n t i t l e d t o choose $25,000 and a n o t h e r $28,489 i n s t o c k a s t h a t s t o c k was v a l u e d on March 3 , 1983. I t is from t h a t o r d e r and t h e August 1 2 , 1983 o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e w i f e temporary maintenance t h a t t h e husband a p p e a l s . The husband r a i s e s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : (1) Did t h e District C o u r t have j u r i s d i c t i o n on August 1 2 , 1983 t o award ex p a r t e temporary maintenance t o t h e w i f e ? ( 2 ) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o n September 29, 1983 t o d e s i g n a t e March 3, 1983, a s t h e v a l u a t i o n d a t e o f t h e c o r p o r a t e s t o c k and g r a n t t h e w i f e t h e r i g h t t o choose t h e c o r p o r a t e s t o c k s h e would r e c e i v e ? I n i t i a l l y , t h e husband a s s e r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award t h e w i f e temporary maintenance on August 1 2 , 1983 because a c o u r t c a n n o t amend a judgment under Rule 5 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. w i t h o u t h o l d i n g an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . On Nay 28, 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d t h e husband t o pay $750 p e r month d u r i n g t h e pendency of t h e proceedings. The husband f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h a t o r d e r and was h e l d i n contempt on August 1 6 , 1982. A f t e r t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n was e n t e r e d on March 3, 1983, t h e w i f e , by a f f i d a v i t , i n d i c a t e d t h e husband had a g a i n f a i l e d t o make a temporary maintenance payment and, i n a d d i t i o n , had a c t e d t o d e p r i v e h e r of t h e $27,837 awarded h e r i n t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n . Thus, t h e D i s t r i c t Court was f a c e d w i t h a s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e i n t e n t of i t s o r d e r s , i.e., t h a t t h e w i f e be maintained pending f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e m a t t e r , was n o t being c a r r i e d o u t . Accordingly, it was w i t h i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o q r a n t t h e w i f e ?-?.cGt tsc temporary maintenance. I n S t a t e ex. rel. -Ka-%+ v. D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 547, 582 P.2d 772, t h i s Court s a i d : "The Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t now i n e f f e c t i n Montana g i v e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a u t h o r i t y t o p r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y o r d e r s f o r s u p p o r t and maintenance t o a spouse. S e c t i o n 48-318, R.C.M. 1947 [now S e c t i o n 40-4-106, MCA]. Nothing i n t h a t S t a t u t e r e s t r i c t s t h e power o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o o r d e r s made b e f o r e judgment. I n f a c t , it is s p e c i f i c a l l y provided t h a t t h e g r a n t i n g o f such a n o r d e r d o e s n o t p r e j u d i c e t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s a t ' s u b s e q u e n t h e a r i n g s i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g , ' which would i n c l u d e a n appeal. " Thus, t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e i n d i c a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t t h e w i f e temporary maintenance on August 1 2 , 1983. N e x t , t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n on September 29, 1983 t o d e s i g n a t e March 3 , 1983 a s t h e v a l u a t i o n d a t e of t h e s t o c k and g i v i n g t h e w i f e t h e r i g h t t o choose h e r s t o c k . The husband a s s e r t s t h e March 3 , 1983 d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n was a f i n a l judgment and c o u l d n o t be amended o r m o d i f i e d e x c e p t by motion made w i t h i n t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h e Montana R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure. F i r s t , we n o t e t h a t t h e husband p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e J u l y 1 9 , 1983 and September 1 6 , 1983 h e a r i n g s i n which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t determined t h e d a t e o f v a l u a t i o n f o r t h e c o r p o r a t e s t o c k . S e c o n d , it h a s b e e n h e l d t h a t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of a judgment ambiguous o r u n c e r t a i n upon its f a c e i n v o l v e s n e i t h e r an amendment of its terms nor a c h a l l e n g e t o its v a l i d i t y . S t i e l e r v. S t i e l e r 127 (Minn. 1 9 5 5 ) , 70 N.W.2d m,. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of September 29, 1983 c l a r i f i e d t h e March 3, 1983 d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n . The March 3, 1983 d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n f a i l e d t o d e s i g n a t e t h e d a t e upon which t h e c o r p o r a t e s t o c k would be v a l u e d and b o t h p a r t i e s moved t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e d a t e o f t h e v a l u a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y r e l i e d upon L i p p e r t v. L i p p e r t (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 627 P.2d 1206, 38 St.Rep. 625 and Krause v. Krause (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 654 P.2d 963, 39 St.Rep. 1809, i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e assets s h o u l d be v a l u e d a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n h e a r i n g . Moreover, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t modify o r amend t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n by a u t h o r i z i n g t h e w i f e , i n t h e September 29, 1983 o r d e r , t o choose h e r s t o c k . Again, t h i s was a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n i n which it was s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e had no v o c a t i o n a l s k i l l s and was n o t q u a l i f i e d f o r even t h e most minimal jobs. A s t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n Thomas v. Thomas (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 617 P.2d 133, 37 St.Rep. 1710, " . . since neither party made a timely appeal of the original findings and decree, the parties are bound by it, unless an appropriate proceeding is maintained subsequent hereto for clarification of the findings and decree." Thomas, supra at 1714. A £ f irmed. We concur: Chief ~ u s t i c e -