Case Title: WALLACE v WALLACE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 82-245 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1983 NANCY JEAN XALLRCE, P e t i k i o n e r and Respondent, -VS- THOMAS K. WALLACE, Respondent and Appellant. Ap9eal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Missoula, The Wonorable James B. Wheelis, Jud-ge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel f o r Record: For Appellant: P a t t e r s o n , M a r s i l l o , Tornabene & Schuyler; Charles J. Tornabene, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Ferguson & Pgitchell ; Missoula, Montana Submitted: January 17, 1983 Decided : March 2 5 , 1983 F i l e d : MAH % 5 /gg3 P & 2 5 7 , q L u -- -. Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Respondent ( w i f e ) p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l District i n and f o r t h e County of Missoula, S t a t e of Montana, f o r a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e . F i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , d e c r e e and judgment were e n t e r e d March 26, 1982. A p p e l l a n t ( h u s b a n d ) moved f o r a new t r i a l on A p r i l 6 , 1982. On May 1 9 , 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d an amended d e c r e e and husband a p p e a l s . Husband and w i f e were married on A p r i l 28, 1967, i n Bremerton, Washington. The p a r t i e s had been married f o u r t e e n y e a r s when t h e y s e p a r a t e d i n J a n u a r y , 1981. They have two c h i l d r e n from t h e i r m a r r i a g e . Wife is t h i r t y - t h r e e y e a r s of age. She was unemployed a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e . Wife h a s a high s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n and h a s had v o c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g a s a n u r s e ' s a i d e and as a keypunch o p e r a t o r . During t h e m a r r i a g e , w i f e was employed f o r a s h o r t t i m e a s a ward s e c r e t a r y i n a h o s p i t a l a p p r o x i m a t e l y n i n e y e a r s ago. She a l s o worked a s h o r t t i m e as a n u r s e ' s a i d e f o u r y e a r s ago. Wife had b r a i n s u r g e r y a p p r o x i m a t e l y n i n e y e a r s ago. A s a r e s u l t of t h e s u r g e r y , w i f e has two steel c l i p s i n h e r s k u l l . Wife s u f f e r s from c o n s t a n t headaches and h a s a n e u r o l o g i c a l impairment c a u s i n g slow r e f l e x a c t i o n on h e r l e f t s i d e . Husband is also t h i r t y - t h r e e y e a r s of a g e . H e is employed w i t h t h e B o n n e v i l l e Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (B. P.A. ) . Husband h a s a h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n and h a s taken some classes a t t h e c o l l e g e l e v e l . H e h a s a p p a r e n t good mental and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h . Husband's wage s c a l e a t t h e t i m e of h e a r i n g was $14.65 p e r hour. H e h a s advanced w i t h B.P.A. as f a r a s he is a b l e w i t h o u t a c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n . The p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e wife should have c u s t o d y of t h e t w o minor c h i l d r e n and t h a t t h e husband should be awarded reason- a b l e , l i b e r a l v i s i t a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court d i v i d e d t h e marital estate as f o l l o w s : ITEM - EQUITY TO HUSBAND TO WIFE House $ 46,000.00 Bremerton , Washing t o n House 39,000.00 15,600.00 23,400.00 M i s s o u l a , Montana Land 3,000.00 3,000.00 B e a v e r t a i l , Montana Husband ' s R e t i r e m e n t Account 11,500.00 11,500.00 P e r s o n a l P r o p e r t y - - 9,600.00 - . - - - - .- - . - 5,800.00 - - - - -- 3,800.00 - - . - - - --- -- - S u b t o t a l $109,100.00 $35,900.00 $73,200.00 L e s s Marital L i a b i l i t i e s To Husband TOTAL The District Court o r d e r e d husband t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t of $185 p e r c h i l d p e r month f o r each of t h e t w o minor c h i l d r e n and f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments be i n c r e a s e d by 5 per- c e n t p e r month p e r c h i l d on t h e a n n i v e r s a r y of t h e d e c r e e . The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o o r d e r e d husband t o pay w i f e $130 p e r month as maintenance u n t i l h e r d e a t h or r e m a r r i a g e . The District Court j u s t i f i e d t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n , c h i l d s u p p o r t and maintenance s t a t i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t is an able-bodied man and based upon t h e employment e x p e r i e n c e , age and h e a l t h of t h e p a r t i e s , husband is deemed t o have a g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t h a n w i f e t o a c q u i r e f u t u r e c a p i t a l assets. Following t h e e n t r y of judgment, on A p r i l 6 , 1982, husband moved f o r a new t r i a l . Husband claimed t h e r e was no competent m e d i c a l t e s t i m o n y to s u p p o r t t h e District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t w i f e s u f f e r e d from h e a l t h problems which would i m p a i r h e r p r o s p e c t s o f f i n d i n g f u t u r e employment. On May 3 , 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d h u s b a n d ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l be t r e a t e d as a motion to amend t h e judgment. On May 1 9 , 1982, t h e District C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e d e c r e e be amended. The p r o p e r t y d i v i - s i o n , c h i l d s u p p o r t and maintenance p r o v i s i o n s remained unchanged. Husband a p p e a l s . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e : 1. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n awarding an a u t o m a t i c i n c r e a s e i n t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments. 2 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court I s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s were p r o p e r l y made and based upon s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e . 3. Whether t h e District C o u r t ' s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n w a s in- e q u i t a b l e . Here, t h e c o u r t had c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e of t h e h u s b a n d ' s abi- l i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s u p p o r t and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s needs as t h e y grow o l d e r , r e q u i r e i n c r e a s e d s u p p o r t . The D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments be i n c r e a s e d by 5 p e r c e n t p e r month p e r c h i l d on t h e a n n i v e r s a r y of t h e d e c r e e . W e assume t h e language of t h e c l a u s e is a m i s t a k e and t h e District Court meant to o r d e r a 5 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e p e r c h i l d on an annual b a s i s , n o t a monthly b a s i s , and we d i r e c t t h a t t h e d e c r e e be modified to so r e a d . I n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e f i n d i n g s by t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p e a r t o j u s t i f y t h e 5 p e r c e n t annual i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d s u p p o r t : " [Finding of f a c t no. 13.1 'Based upon t h e employment e x p e r i e n c e , age and h e a l t h of t h e p a r t i e s t h e r e s p o n d e n t (husband) is deemed t o have a g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t h a n t h e p e t i t i o n e r ( w i f e ) to a c q u i r e f u t u r e c a p i t a l a s s e t s and income. ' " [Finding of f a c t no. 14.1 'The r e s p o n d e n t is a n able-bodied man, i n 1980 g r o s s e d $29,000.00 t h r o u g h h i s employment, and is f i n a n c i a l l y c a p a b l e of paying c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $185.00 p e r month p e r c h i l d . ' " Husband n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s 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 were n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e . Husband claims t h e r e c o r d l a c k s t h e medical t e s t i m o n y n e c e s s a r y to s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t w i f e ' s h e a l t h problems w a r r a n t t h e i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y . Husband claims s i n c e w i f e was t h e o n l y w i t n e s s who t e s t i f i e d concerning h e r own h e a l t h , such t e s t i m o n y does not c o n s t i t u t e c r e d i b l e e v i - d e n c e . T h i s Court has s t a t e d s e v e r a l times: "We w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e trier of f a c t , b u t r a t h e r w i l l o n l y c o n s i d e r whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . Those f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d by t h i s Court u n l e s s t h e r e is a clear preponderance of e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t them. W e w i l l view t h e evidence i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e may be weak or c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e y e t s t i l l s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s . " I n R e Marriage o f Bosacker ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont . , 609 P.2d 253, 256, 37 ~ t . ~ e p . 469, 47i-i----cameron v. Cameron (1978 ) , -- Mont . - - r 587 P.2d 939, 945, 35 St.Rep. 1723, 1729. Here, t h e r e w a s no e v i d e n c e which c o n t r a d i c t e d t h e medical t e s t i m o n y of t h e w i f e . Viewing t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e w i f e , we f i n d t h e husband h a s not m e t h i s burden o f coming f o r t h w i t h a preponderance of e v i d e n c e to r e b u t t h e w i f e I s testimony. Husband a r g u e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g was i n e r r o r because t h e r e w a s no c o r r o b o r a t i n g t e s t i m o n y from com- p e t e n t medical a u t h o r i t i e s t o s u p p o r t t h e w i f e ' s own t e s t i m o n y of h e r h e a l t h problems. T h i s Court h a s never s t a t e d t h e r e must be c o r r o b o r a t i n g t e s t i m o n y from competent medical a u t h o r i t i e s to s u p p o r t one p a r t y ' s t e s t i m o n y about h e a l t h problems i n a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . Here, t h e husband could have made competent medical a u t h o r i t y a v a i l a b l e to t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e b u t t h e w i f e ' s testi- mony b u t chose n o t to do so. Even though a p a r t y ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e i r own h e a l t h problems may be weak, it is still t h e bur- d e n of t h e opposing p a r t y to o f f e r e v i d e n c e as r e b u t t a l . The husband f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e marital assets as r e q u i r e d by sect i o n 40-4-202, MCA. Husband claims t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n is in- e q u i t a b l e because t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d a s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i s p r o p o r - t i o n a t e amount of t h e p r o p e r t y . I n , I n R e Marriage of Laster ( 1 9 8 2 ) -- Mont . -- - , 643 P.2d 597, 39 St.Rep. 737, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The District C o u r t ' s d u t y under s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), MCA, is t o c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t o r s t h e r e i n and t h e n d i v i d e t h e p r o p e r t y e q u i t a b l y . An e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean an e q u a l d i v i s i o n . A s h a s been noted many times by t h i s C o u r t , . . . : "'Although t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may e q u a l l y d i v i d e t h e m a r i t a l assets, Eiih-a d i T t r i b u t i G - -- IS n o t mandated by s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA . . . - - - - - - - - - S e c t i o n 40-4-202 is f l e x i b l e and it v e s t s a good d e a l of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e District Court . . . w e have s t a t e d , b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e , t h a t each c a s e must be looked a t i n d i v i d u a l l y , with an eye to its unique c i r c u m s t a n c e s . . . I 11 ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) (Emphasis added.) L a s t e r , - 643 P.2d a t 601. A s p r e v i o u s l y noted i n t h i s case, t h e wife was unemployed a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g . It was n o t i n e q u i t a b l e to g i v e t h e wife t h e house i n Washington, and a l a r g e r p o r t i o n of t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e sale of t h e r e n t a l p r o p e r t y i n Missoula. C o n s i d e r i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w i f e was unemployed a t t h e t i m e of h e a r i n g and w a s t o have c u s t o d y of t h e t w o minor c h i l d r e n , h e r needs are con- s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r t h a n t h e husband's. The r e c o r d shows t h e D i s t r i c t Court attempted to make t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n based upon t h e a g e , h e a l t h , s t a t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , amount and s o u r c e s of income, v o c a t i o n a l s k i l l s , e m p l o y a b i l i t y , l i a b i l i t i e s , needs of t h e p a r t i e s and c u s t o d i a l p r o v i s i o n s as mandated by sect i o n 40-4-202, MCA. W e f i n d no error i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n of t h e marital p r o p e r t y . The judgment is af f irmed . W e concur: C h i e f J u s t i c e Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t : I concur i n a f f i r m i n g t h e d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and f i n d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on t h e w i f e ' s h e a l t h problems. M y q u a r r e l is i n t h e award o f an a u t o m a t i c a n n u a l i n - c r e a s e i n c h i l d s u p p o r t . I t is e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e r e be an e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t it would be unconscion- a b l e t o c o n t i n u e t h e amount of c h i l d s u p p o r t payments t h e n i n e f f e c t . See G a l l v. G a l l ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 608 P.2d 496, 37 St.Rep. 639. G a l l f u r t h e r c a u t i o n s t h a t t h e award of c h i l d s u p p o r t c a n n o t be based upon "mere s p e c u l a - t i v e f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s o r p o s s i b l e c o n d i t i o n s . " 608 P.2d a t 498. Here, t h e r e c o r d is b a r r e n of any e v i d e n t i a r y founda- t i o n f o r t h e a u t o m a t i c a n n u a l i n c r e a s e . Automatic c o s t of l i v i n g a d j u s t m e n t s i n c h i l d s u p p o r t payments based on a formula t h a t f l u c t u a t e s w i t h changes i n t h e Consumer P r i c e Index and c o n s i d e r s t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t is p o s s i b l e . See F a l l s v. F a l l s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 52 appa N.C.App. 203, 278 S.E.2d 546; B r a n s t a d v. B r a n s t a d (Ind.I! 19&0), 400 N.E.2d 167. The v i c e of t h e a u t o m a t i c c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e is t h a t t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n s 40-4- 204 and 40-4-208, MCA, were assumed t o remain c o n s t a n t and t h e 5 p e r c e n t a n n u a l i n c r e a s e e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h o u t eviden- t i a r y s u p p o r t . I would v a c a t e t h e annual c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d s u p p o r t and a f f i r m t h e remainder of t h e d e c r e e . Chief J u s t l c e wssiD Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber: I concur i n t h e f o r e g o i n g s e p a r a t e o p i n i o n of t h e Chief J u s t i c e . Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I also join in the affirmance of the property division but dissent from the approval of the automatic cost of living escalator. This case only demonstrates what has always been known to be the true basis of family law--the only certainty is that there is no certainty. With absolutely no evidentiary foundation, the trial court ordered child support payments to increase 5 percent per year. No evidence was offered by the wife that the husband's salary had increased at any particular rate or that it would increase at any rate in the future. It can also be assumed that the husband's needs as time goes by, will increase. The strange thing here is that an annual increase in child support was not really a factor in the trial of this case. Rather, the first suggestion came when the wife proposed the automatic increase in the proposed find.ings and conclusions submitted to the trial court after the hearing was over. With no evidentiary basis in the record, and with no explanation of why the automatic increase was granted, the trial court simply ordered it to be. I find this to be a gross abuse of discretion.