Case Title: MARRIAGE OF TESCH

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-518

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-518 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 I N R E T H E MARRIAGE O F CHARLES F. TESCH, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, and ELAINE P. TESCH, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth 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 Teton Honorable R.D. McPhillips, Judge p r e s i d i n 9 . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Larry J u e l f s argued, Choteau, Montana For Respondent: Charles M. J o s l y n argued, Choteau, Montana Submitted: A p r i l 5, 1982 Decided: July 15, 1982 F i l e d : 3UL 1 5 1982: Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an appeal of an o r d e r denying t h e w i f e ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Teton County. The d e f a u l t judgment d i s s o l v e d t h e p a r t i e s ' marriage and d i s t r i b u t e d t h e main m a r i t a l a s s e t , t h e f a r m , t o t h e husband. The husband and w i f e married i n 1947. All of t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e m a r r i a g e a r e now p a s t t h e age of m a j o r i t y . I n 1955, t h e p a r t i e s began t o farm land known a s t h e Passmore P l a c e l o c a t e d i n Teton County, o u t s i d e of Choteau, Ivlontana. I n i t i a l l y , t h e y farmed under a p a r t n e r s h i p - l e a s e agreement with t h e w i f e ' s b r o t h e r . I n 1960, t h e y bought t h e land a s j o i n t t e n a n t s , borrowing $18,000 f o r t h e downpay- ment. I n 1964, they r e f i n a n c e d , borrowing $66,008- Farm income was used t o pay o f f t h e l o a n s . The p r e s e n t amount owed on t h e farm is approximately $60,000. The wife is f i f t y - t h r e e y e a r s o l d and h a s a seventeen year h i s t o r y of m u l t i p l e s c l e r o s i s , S i n c e e a r l y 1965 s h e h a s been s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d , unable t o walk and unable t o h e l p i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e farm. From 1964 t o 1971, t h e husband ran t h e farm, cared f o r h i s w i f e , and r a i s e d t h e c h i l d r e n . I n 1971 t h e wife was moved t o t h e Teton County Nursing Home i n Choteau where she now r e s i d e s . A p h y s i c i a n ' s r e p o r t d a t e d A p r i l 14, 1981, d e s c r i b e s t h e w i f e ' s p r e s e n t p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n : 'I. . . A t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e s h e [ t h e wife] is unable t o feed h e r s e l f o r even t a k e water without somebody a s s i s t i n g h e r . She cannot sit on a c h a i r without much s u p p o r t . She cannot even make an x on paper without some- body s u p p o r t i n g her hand and t h u s a s s i s t i n g h e r . She h a s l o s t c o n t r o l o f h e r b l a d d e r and h a s an i n d w e l l i n g F o l e y c a t h e t e r on a c o n t i n - uous b a s i s . "On examining h e r , h e r p u p i l s do seem t o re- a c t t o l i g h t . Her e y e s l o o k s t r a i g h t a h e a d . She is u n a b l e t o move t h e e y e s t o e i t h e r s i d e o r up o r down. To f o l l o w a n y t h i n g from s i d e t o s i d e , s h e must move h e r head and s h e h a s movement o f t h e head a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 5 d e g r e e s i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n . She is u n a b l e t o l o o k up much o r down a t a l l . Her h e a r i n g a p p e a r s t o be a d e q u a t e . She c a n chew and c a n swallow. She d o e s have movement o f b o t h upper e x t r e - m i t i t e s , b u t is e x t r e m e l y s p a s t i c , more s o on t h e l e f t and less s o on t h e r i g h t . She c a n n o t t o u c h h e r n o s e w i t h h e r l e f t i n d e x f i n g e r . She c a n e v e n t u a l l y h i t h e r n o s e w i t h t h e r i g h t b u t t h e s p a s t i c i t y is v e r y e v i d e n t . . . The lower e x t r e m i t i e s a r e more o r less r i g i d . . . When t h e p i l l o w is removed from between h e r l e g s , t h e l e f t l e g c r o s s e s o v e r t h e r i g h t b e c a u s e o f t h e s p a s t i c i t y . Both f e e t a r e i n a d r o p p e d p o s i t i o n a n d r e a l l y c a n n o t b e s t r a i g h t e n e d a t a l l . "When t a l k i n g w i t h h e r , s h e c a n r e s p o n d v e r - b a l l y w i t h a one word r e s p o n s e . The a c c u r a c y o f t h e r e s p o n s e is i n q u e s t i o n . I a s k e d h e r w h a t s h e h a d f o r b r e a k f a s t t o d a y . S h e r e s p o n d e d c e r e a l . When c h e c k i n g w i t h t h e n u r s i n g s t a f f , s h e had o n l y had j u i c e t h i s morning. O f t e n h e r r e s p o n s e is what s h e t h i n k s you would l i k e t o h e a r . A f t e r less t h a n 5 m i n u t e s , h e r v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s seemed t o more o r less s t o p and s h e r e s p o n d e d p r i - m a r i l y by j u s t a s h r u g o f t h e s h o u l d e r and I c o u l d n o t e v a l u a t e w h e t h e r it was a p o s t i v e o r n e g a t i v e o r s h e d i d n o t know. " I t is my i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h i s p a t i e n t is t o t a l l y and c o m p l e t e l y p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d . Her m e n t a l r e s p o n s e s a r e a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e t o e v a l u a t e b e c a u s e of h e r p h y s i c a l i n a b i l i t y t o c o m p l e t e l y r e s p o n d and communicate." ( P e t i - t i o n e r ' s E x h i b i t #1 i n J u l y 2 1 , 1 9 8 1 , h e a r i n g t o s e t a s i d e d e f a u l t judgment.) C)n December 1 6 , 1980, t h e husband f i l e d f o r d i s s o l u - t i o n of h i s m a r r i a g e , c l a i m i n g t h a t w h i l e t h e Passmore P l a c e was h e l d i n j o i n t t e n a n c y , he was t h e t r u e owner and it s h o u l d be awarded t o him. The w i f e was s e r v e d w i t h a sunlmons and t h e p e t i t i o n on December 3 0 , 1980. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p e t i t i o n on J a n u a r y 28, 1981. N e i t h e r t h e wife nor a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r t h e wife was p r e s e n t . The following d i s c u s s i o n took p l a c e a t t h e h e a r i n g : " T H E COURT: Mrs. T e s c h - - s h e ' s on t h i s c o n t r a c t f o r deed from Passmore? "MR. JOSLYN [ATTORNEY F O R HUSBAND] : He h a s a c t e d under her Power of Attorney f o r 4 o r 5 o r 6 y e a r s . "THE COURT: Is s h e competent -- Mrs. Tesch? "MR. JOSLYN: Pardon? "THE COURT: Is Mrs. Tesch competent? "MR. JOSLYN: T h a t ' s something, Your Honor, t h a t -- a s f a r a s I know, s h e is. I ' v e t a l k e d t o h e r and -- "WITNESS [HUSBAND] : O t h e r t h a n b e i n g muscular i n c a p a c i t a t e d because of t h e end nerve damage and s h e is n o t a b l e t o speak t o o many words a t c e r t a i n times, b u t a s f a r a s h e r powers of reasoning and r e c a l l and mental c a p a c i t y t h e r e is no impairment whatever and never h a s been. "THE COURT: She knows w h a t ' s going on? "WITNESS: Oh, a b s o l u t e l y . "MR. JOSLYN: Your Honor, f o r what it is worth, when we s t a r t e d t h i s I went and we e x p l a i n e d e v e r y t h i n g t o h e r , you know, a s much a s p o s s i b l e , and I a m c o n f i d e n t t h a t s h e understood e v e r y t h i n g , you know." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o c e e d e d t h e n t o g r a n t t h e d i v o r c e , r e q u e s t i n g t h a t a q u i t c l a i m deed o r some o t h e r evidence be placed on t h e record showing t h a t t h e w i f e v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h e d h e r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e farm. N o such evidence was ever placed on t h e record. The D i s t r i c t Court made no d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e n e t m a r i t a l e s t a t e , N o f i n d i n g was made on any m a r i t a l a s s e t o t h e r than t h e farmland i t s e l f . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n g r a n t i n g t h e husband t h e p r o p e r t y , found t h a t t h e husband had purchased it through h i s own e f f o r t s and t h a t , even though t h e land was h e l d i n j o i n t tenancy, t h e husband had n o t intended t o g i v e t h e w i f e an undivided one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y . O n February 25, 1981, t h e Teton County Attorney f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r appointment of a g u a r d i a n f o r t h e wife. He r e q u e s t e d t h e appointment so t h a t a g u a r d i a n could pursue the w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t s by f i l i n g a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. Lyall Tesch, an a d u l t son of t h e p a r t i e s , i n t e r v e n e d i n t h e a c t i o n , r e q u e s t i n g t h a t he be appointed g u a r d i a n . He s t a t e d , however, t h a t he d i d n o t want t o be involved i n t r y i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. A t t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p h e a r i n g , L y a l l T e s c h was appointed g e n e r a l g u a r d i a n , b u t t h e r e was some confusion a s t o who would be appointed temporary g u a r d i a n t o r e p r e s e n t t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t s i n c o n t e s t i n g t h e d e f a u l t judgment. The Teton County Attorney was n o t c o n s i d e r e d e l i g i b l e t o r e p r e s e n t t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t s ; n e i t h e r was t h e County Welfare D i r e c t o r who happens t o be t h e County A t t o r n e y ' s wife. The D i s t r i c t Court asked i f t h e r e was a P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r who would be w i l l i n g t o r e p r e s e n t t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t s . The County Attorney s a i d t h a t t h e Teton County P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r was a v a i l a b l e , and he was t h e n appointed g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m and c o n s e r v a t o r of t h e w i f e ' s e s t a t e . O n June 23, 1981, t h e Teton County Attorney f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r removal of t h e P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r a s t h e w i f e ' s temporary g u a r d i a n on t h e grounds t h a t he r e f u s e d t o b r i n g an a c t i o n t o i n v a l i d a t e t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t between t h e husband and w i f e . No n o t i c e was s e n t t o any of t h e a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s . Without n o t i c e o r h e a r i n g a Teton County Commissioner, Myron Wheeler, was appointed temporary g u a r d i a n , c o n s e r v a t o r and g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m of t h e w i f e ' s e s t a t e , The new temporary g u a r d i a n a s c o n s e r v a t o r made up an i n v e n t o r y of t h e w i f e ' s e s t a t e : t h e wife had $25.B0 per month i n s o c i a l s e c u r i t y payments and " v a r i o u s and sundry p e r s o n a l items." O n June 3 0 , 1981, t h e Teton County Attorney, a c t i n g a s a t t o r n e y f o r t h e w i f e ' s g u a r d i a n , Commissioner Wheeler, f i l e d two motions t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. The f i r s t motion claimed t h a t t h e husband had cornmitted f r a u d upon t h e D i s t r i c t Court and t h a t , under t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e of Rule 6 0 ( b ) , M,R.Civ.P., t h e judgment should be s e t a s i d e . The second motion claimed t h a t t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e w i f e ' s d i s a b i l i t y prevented her appearance and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n c o u r t , and t h a t u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P., t h e judgment should be s e t a s i d e , Under t h e time l i m i t s i n Rule 60 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., t h e Teton County Attorney determined t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court had denied t h e motions and f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal on September 4, 1981. The D i s t r i c t Court e v e n t u a l l y e n t e r e d i t s f i n d - i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and judgment d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n s on November 27, 1981. While t h e p a r t i e s have r a i s e d v a r i o u s convoluted i s s u e s on a p p e a l , t h e q u e s t i o n now b e f o r e t h i s Court is simply whether t h e w i f e ' s motions t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment should have been g r a n t e d . Because t h e record does n o t show t h a t t h e husband a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y o r even i n bad f a i t h toward h i s d i s a b l e d w i f e , we cannot g r a n t t h e Rule 6CI(b) motion claiming t h a t t h e husband p e r p e t r a t e d f r a u d upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Never- t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e of t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s involving t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e w i f e ' s d i s a b i l i t i e s and t h e absence of anything i n t h e record showing v o l u n t a r y and knowing relinquishment of t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t s i n t h e farm, e q u i t y demands t h a t we s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment under Rule 60 ( b ) ( 6 ) . Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e c o u r t may r e l i e v e a p a r t y from a f i n a l judgment f o r any reason o t h e r than t h e p r e v i o u s f i v e s u b d i v i s i o n s of Rule 6 a ( b ) . I t is a c a t c h - a l l p r o v i s i o n , designed f o r use i n e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances. See, Wright & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & Procedure, s e c t i o n 2864. Unlike t h e f i r s t t h r e e s u b d i v i s i o n s of Rule GBl(b), t h e r e is no sixty-day time l i m i t s e t on Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) ; t h e motion must o n l y be made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time. Here, t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e a p p a r e n t , The wife is t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d by m u l t i p l e s c l e r o s i s . Such a d i s a b i l i t y , i n i t s e l f , might w a r r a n t t h e s e t t i n g a s i d e of t h e d e f a u l t judgment. Here, however, o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a l s o s u p p o r t t h e s e t t i n g a s i d e of t h e judgment. Nothing on t h e record a d d r e s s e s t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e w i f e ' s competency o r her v o l u n t a r y relinquishment of h e r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e farm, W e cannot look t o t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court because t h e t r i a l c o u r t was d i v e s t e d of j u r i s d i c t i o n when t h e n o t i c e t o appeal was f i l e d . See, Bartmess v. Bartmess (1981) , - Mont. , 631 P.2d 299, 38 St-Rep. 1097. Equity and p u b l i c p o l i c y demand t h a t we n o t a l l o w a p a r t y t o t e s t i f y t o t h e competency of t h e opposing p a r t y where t h e opposing p a r t y is n e i t h e r p r e s e n t nor r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel. See, Barone v. Cox ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 379 W e emphasize t h a t t h e c r u c i a l problem with t h i s c a s e is t h a t nowhere a r e t h e d e s i r e s of t h e w i f e on record. While t h e r e is nothing t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e wife d i d n o t a g r e e t o t h e d i v o r c e and p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n , her wishes should n e v e r t h e l e s s be placed on t h e record. I n o r d e r t o h a v e t h e w i f e ' s w i s h e s p l a c e d on r e c o r d , t h e d e f a u l t judgment must be s e t a s i d e , a competency h e a r i n g should be held t o determine whether a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m needs t o be appointed under Rule 1 7 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., and, i f no g u a r d i a n is n e c e s s a r y , t h e p a r t i e s on remand w i l l have t h e oppor- t u n i t y t o p u t on record whether o r n o t t h e wife v o l u n t a r i l y and knowingly r e l i n q u i s h e s her i n t e r e s t i n t h e farm. A s a p e r i p h e r a l i s s u e , t h e husband h a s o b j e c t e d t o t h e appointment of Commissioner Wheeler a s t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r t h e w i f e because of a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . The D i s t r i c t Court would have no a u t h o r i t y t o a p p o i n t a g u a r d i a n who had "an a c t u a l c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t i n regard t o t h e purpose f o r which t h e temporary g u a r d i a n s h i p is sought." S e c t i o n 72-5-317 ( 3 ) , MCA; s e e a l s o , s e c t i o n 72-5-312 ( 4 ) ( a ) , MCA. A s a county commissioner f o r Teton County, it would appear Commissioner Wheelert s i n t e r e s t s c o n f l i c t with t h o s e of t h e wife, who is a r e s i d e n t , r e q u i r i n g f u l l c a r e , a t t h e Teton County Nursing Home. W e t h e r e f o r e s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. W e re- mand t h i s c a s e back t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court with i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t a competency h e a r i n g be h e l d , and a new g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m a p p o i n t e d u n d e r R u l e 1 7 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., i f t h e W e concur: b d a . ww,-4 C h i e f Jusrtice