Case Title: MARRIAGE OF PERRY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 85-067

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-07-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 8 5 - 6 7 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF DALTON ANTHONY PERRY, P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , and CAROLYN SUE PERRY, R e s p o n d e n t and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h 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 C o u n t y of Y e l l o w s t o n e , T h e H o n o r a b l e D i a n e G. B a r z , Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : K e e f e r , R o y b a l , H a n s o n , Stacey & Jarussi, B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : G e o r g e R a d o v i c h , B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : May 9 , 1 9 8 5 Decided: July 2 9 , 1 9 8 5 F i l e d : C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Carolyn Perry a p p e a l s an o r d e r and judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court, T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, which divided t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e , provided f o r c h i l d support and denied maintenance and a t t o r n e y s f e e s . The d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i s affirmed; maintenance and a t t o r n e y s f e e s a r e remanded. Carolyn and Tony w e r e married on September 17, 1971. They had two c h i l d r e n , Jody, now age 9 , and J e f f , age 6 . Carolyn i s 4 4 y e a r s o l d and Tony i s 35. P r i o r t o t h e i r marriage, both p a r t i e s w e r e employed and provided f o r t h e i r own support. Tony was an e l e c t r i c i a n , and he h a s been s e l f - employed s i n c e 1977 a s an e l e c t r i c a l c o n t r a c t o r . Carolyn holds a Bachelor o f Science (Zoology) degree and was employed f o r approximately 11 y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e marriage a s a p e d i a t - r i c micro-chemistry l a b o r a t o r y worker. Tony's income v a r i e s from y e a r t o y e a r b u t he i s now making approximately $25,000 a year. Carolyn d i d n o t work while t h e p a r t i e s w e r e married. A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d , Carolyn s t a r t e d t o t e a c h piano l e s s o n s and sell s k i n c a r e products from h e r home, A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l she was making approximately $175 p e r month t e a c h i n g piano and approximately $300 p e r month s e l l i n g s k i n c a r e products. Tony 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 o f marriage on A p r i l 16, 1982. By motion dated May 21, 1982, Carolyn sought a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r r e q u e s t i n g t h a t Tony v a c a t e t h e family home and t h a t d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h e proceedings, he be r e q u i r e d t o support h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n . The p a r t i e s reached an agreement, incorporated i n a c o u r t o r d e r , t h a t Tony would v a c a t e t h e family home and t h a t he would pay C a r o l y n $300 e a c h month and i n a d d i t i o n p a y t h e m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e o n t h e f a m i l y home i n t h e amount o f $320. T r i a l was h e l d on September 2 , 1983. The District C o u r t made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and a n o r d e r on O c t o b e r 4 , 1983. The d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n was n o t s i g n e d u n t i l October 1 8 , 1984. C a r o l y n a p p e a l s t h e District C o u r t o r d e r o n t h e f o l l o w - i n g issues: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e p a r t i e s ' r e a l a n d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y ? 2. Was t h e d e n i a l o f a m a i n t e n a n c e award t o t h e w i f e j u s t i f i e d u n d e r t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e ? 3. Was t h e d e n i a l o f t h e w i f e ' s r e q u e s t t h a t t h e hus- band p a y r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n c u r r e d b y h e r i n t h e d e f e n s e o f t h i s m a t t e r p r o p e r ? PROPERTY DIVISION The District C o u r t d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s a s f0l.lows: HUSBAND ITEM One-half h o u s e p r o c e e d s One-half l a n d sale 1978 C h e v r o l e t p i c k u p 1982 D a t s u n p i c k u p 1982 Toyota c a r Kawasaki m o t o r c y c l e 1964 C h e v r o l e t v a n T o o l s B u s i n e s s s a v i n g s a c c o u n t B u s i n e s s c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t P e r s o n a l c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t One-half V a i l t i m e - s h a r e TOTAL A.SSETS TO HUSBAND A M O U N T $17,750.00 6,000.00 3,450.00 8,500.00 10,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 5,000.00 800.00 400.00 (unknown) ITEM WIFE A M O U N T One-ha 1 f h o u s e p r o c e e d s One-half l a n d s a l e 1978 S u b a r u J e w e l r y F u r n i s h i n g s and a p p l i a n c e s P e r s o n a l s a v i n g s a c c o u n t One-half V a i l t i m e - s h a r e $17,750.00 6,000.00 2,875.00 3,000.00 6,000.00 3,000.00 (unknown) TOTAL ASSETS TO WIFE $37,625.00 ----------- ----------- The l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s w e r e d i v i d e d as f o l l o w s : HUSBAND ITEM T a x e s - 1982 and 1983 Gertie P e r r y - o n e - h a l f o f $11,000.00 G e r t i e P e r r y - r e m a i n d e r o f p i c k u p l o a n One-half V a i l t i m e - s h a r e Kawasaki d e b t ( a s a b o v e ) D a t s u n d e b t ( a s a b o v e ) Toyota d e b t ( a s a b o v e ) HUSBAND'S TOTAL LIABILITIES $41,050.00 ------------ ------------ WIFE ITEM A M O U N T G e r t i e P e r r y - o n e - h a l f o f $11,000.00 $ 5,500.00 One-half V a i l t i m e - s h a r e 1,750.00 WIFE'S TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 7,250.00 ----------- ----------- C a r o l y n ' s p r i m a r y d i s p u t e w i t h t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i s t h a t s h e w i s h e s t o be a l l o w e d t o r e m a i n i n t h e f a m i l y home u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e n r e a c h t h e a g e o f m a j o r i t y b e c a u s e t h e h o u s e i s l o c a t e d c l o s e t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s c h o o l and t h e m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e payment i s o n l y $320. She would n o t b e a b l e t o f i n d s i m i l a r h o u s i n g f o r t h a t amount. The District C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h e h o u s e s h o u l d be s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s s p l i t e v e n l y between t h e two p a r t i e s . C a r o l y n a l s o d i s p u t e s t h e e q u a l d i v i s i o n o f t h e i r r e a l p r o p e r t y i n C o l o r a d o b e c a u s e s h e u s e d $5,000 from h e r p r e m a r i t a l savings account for i t s down payment. The D i s - t r i c t Court found t h a t Tony's income had been used f o r t h e rest o f t h e payments and he was e n t i t l e d t o one-half o f t h e proceeds from i t s s a l e . Carolyn a l s o argues t h a t she should n o t have t o pay one-half o f t h e amount remaining due on a loan from Tony's mother because t h e r e had been an agreement w i t h t h e mother t h a t t h e y wouldn't have t o make anymore payments. There was a promissory n o t e on t h e loan signed by both Carolyn and Tony, b u t no payments had been made s i n c e 1977. The standard o f review of a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t h a s been s t a t e d many times. I n d i v i d i n g p r o p e r t y i n a marriage d i s s o - l u t i o n t h e District Court has far-reaching d i s c r e t i o n and its judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d without a showing o f c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . The test o f abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y without employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment o r exceeded t h e bounds o f reason r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e . I n R e Marriage o f Rolfe (Mont. 1985), 699 P.2d 79, 42 St.Rep. 623; In R e Marriage o f V e r t (Mont. 1984), 680 P.2d 587, 4 1 St.Rep. 895. Applying t h i s standard w e cannot say t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . W e a r e sympathetic t o t h e w i f e ' s d e s i r e t o s t a y i n t h e family home, however, t h e house r e p r e s e n t s a very l a r g e p a r t of t h e t o t a l a s s e t s owned by t h e p a r t i e s . I f t h e husband cannot o b t a i n h i s s h a r e o f t h i s a s s e t , he w i l l have substan- t i a l l y l e s s t h a n one-half o f t h e a s s e t s . The w i f e w i l l be r e c e i v i n g funds from t h e s a l e o f t h e p r o p e r t y , and although she may n o t be a b l e t o f i n d housing a s n i c e a s t h e family home, she should be a b l e t o f i n d adequate housing f o r h e r s e l f and h e r c h i l d r e n . The equal d i v i s i o n o f t h e proceeds from t h e Colorado r e a l p r o p e r t y was a reasonable e x e r c i s e of 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 . Since Tony d i d c o n t r i b u t e toward t h e purchase o f t h e p r o p e r t y , w e cannot f i n d an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . Carolyn i s l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o pay on t h e n o t e t o Tony's mother. W e cannot f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g h e r t o pay one-half o f t h e remaining payments. Maintenance Carolyn contends t h a t t h e District C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of maintenance f o r h e r was n o t j u s t i f i e d under t h e f a c t s and circumstances o f t h i s case. W e agree. The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t h e husband's payments o f $620 p e r month f o r o v e r a year w e r e s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e w i f e ' s r e h a b i l i t a t i v e purposes and t h a t no f u r t h e r maintenance was necessary. The c o u r t went on t o s a y t h a t t h e w i f e has a "demonstrated income c a p a c i t y " a s a l a b t e c h n i c i a n , a piano t e a c h e r o r a cosmetic s a l e s p e r s o n . W e f i n d Carolyn's s i t u a t i o n v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e s i t u a - t i o n i n t h e r e c e n t c a s e o f I n R e Marriage of Rolfe (Mont. 1985), 699 P.2d 79, 4 2 St.Rep. 623, i n which w e remanded t h e award of maintenance f o r only one y e a r because t h a t was n o t enough t i m e f o r t h e w i f e t o f i n d adequate employment t o maintain h e r standard o f l i v i n g . In Rolfe, t h e w i f e had a B.A. i n education and had t a u g h t f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s p r i o r t o marriage. She d i d n o t work d u r i n g t h e 15 y e a r s o f marriage. W e found t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court had r e l i e d h e a v i l y on t h e husband's a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e w i f e could e a r n $17,000 a y e a r a s an elementary school t e a c h e r . A t t h e time o f t r i a l , she was without a t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e o r t e a c h i n g experience f o r 16 y e a r s . S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e c a s e a t hand, Carolyn h a s n o t worked i n 1 0 y e a r s . There i s evidence i n t h e r e c o r d , t h a t i f she w e r e t o r e t u r n t o h e r o l d p o s i t i o n a s a l a b t e c h n i c i a n , she would need a d d i t i o n a l schooling t o m e e t c e r t i f i c a t i o n re- quirements. The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o r e l i e d t o o h e a v i l y on t h e f i n d i n g t h a t Carolyn could earn $11 p e r hour t e a c h i n g piano o r $12 t o $40 p e r hour s e l l i n g cosmetics. This i s d e c e p t i v e because it would be v e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r h e r t o work 40 hours a week a t e i t h e r one o f t h e s e jobs. Carolyn testi- f i e d t h a t she and t h e c h i l d r e n had been s t r u g g l i n g finan- c i a l l y s i n c e t h e p a r t y ' s s e p a r a t i o n , b u t t h e husband's l i f e s t y l e seems t o have s u f f e r e d very l i t t l e . H e h a s even been a b l e t o make s e v e r a l l a r g e purchases. The p r o p e r t y t h e D i s t r i c t Court awarded Carolyn i s n o t income-producing. The one year o f maintenance Carolyn h a s a l r e a d y received has n o t been enough t o allow h e r t o become f i n a n c i a l l y independent. W e remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e w i f e ' s s a l a r y p r o s p e c t s and d u r a t i o n o f maintenance. A t t o r n e y ' s Fees Carolyn asked t h a t t h e District Court award h e r a t t o r - n e y ' s f e e s . The c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s on t h i s m a t t e r b u t simply s t a t e d : "Each o f t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l pay t h e i r own l e g a l f e e s and c o s t s . " Where t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e f u s e s t o award a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , it must i n d i c a t e i n t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t why such f e e s w e r e not awarded. I n R e Marriage of Hammeren (Mont. 1982), 6 6 3 P.2d 1152, 39 St.Rep. 2222. Having f a i l e d t o follow t h i s procedure, t h e w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s s h a l l be considered on remand, and i f denied, t h e d e n i a l must be s u b s t a n t i a t e d . The husband contends t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f t h i s appeal was without m e r i t and was done f o r purposes o f delay. C l e a r l y , t h i s appeal has m e r i t and h i s r e q u e s t f o r damages i s denied. W e a f f i r m i n p a r t and remand i n p a r t f o r f u r t h e r pro- ceedings i n accordance w i t h t h i s opinion. W e concur: I