Title: FAUTSCH v FAUTSCH

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12719 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 1974 JEANETTE R. FAUTSCH, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - ROMAN A. FAUTSCH, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Richard J. Conklin argued, White Sulphur Springs, Montana For Respondent: Huppert and Swindlehurst, Livingston, Montana Joseph T. Swindlehurst argued, Livingston, Montana Submitted: September 19, 1974 Decided : JAN 2 4 1 9 7 5 F i l e d : SF 8 4 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 by t h e husband from t h e property settlement and d i v i s i o n p o r t i o n of a f i n a l judgment of divorce granted t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , County of Park, on November 27, 1973. The p a r t i e s were married December 3 , 1949. The wife w a s a teacher and continued t o teach f o r approximately t h r e e y e a r s u n t i l 1953, then was o u t of t h e profession u n t i l 1958. During t h i s t i m e two c h i l d r e n were born, a son, age 17 y e a r s a t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce, and a daughter who w a s k i l l e d i n a family auto- mobile accident i n 1965. The wife has not taught school s i n c e t h e daughter w a s k i l l e d i n 1965. The husband i s a sawyer f o r a lumber m i l l and a t t h e time of t h e divorce, on a seven day work week, earning $1,000 per month based on an hourly r a t e . During t h e marriage t h e husband worked a t odd jobs i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s r e g u l a r employment and both p a r t i e s contributed t h e i r wages t o t h e j o i n t a s s e t s under t h e p r i n c i p a l c o n t r o l of t h e wife. I n 1965 t h e p a r t i e s acquired The Sleeping Giant Motel i n Livingston, Montana. The purchase p r i c e w a s $30,000 and t h e balance due a t t h e time of t h e divorce w a s $7,348.55. This purchase w a s made with j o i n t earnings and a loan of $3,000 from t h e w i f e ' s mother. I n 1972, t h e motel grossed $10,056. Based on i t s earnings, t h e wife estimated t h e m o t e l ' s value a t $30,000- $35,000. The husband estimated t h e value of t h e motel a t $75,000. However, testimony i n d i c a t e s t h e motel was l i s t e d f o r s a l e a t $100,000. The p a r t i e s formerly owned a home i n Livingston, Montana, which had been sold. A t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce, t h e r e was $6,235.36 owed t o t h e p a r t i e s from t h e buyers. The wife had invested $10,000 i n her name only i n a busi- ness known as Chico Hot Springs and had apprcximately $1,900 i n a savings account. She t e s t i f i e d t h e s e monies were p a r t of a settlement from t h e accident which r e s u l t e d i n t h e death of t h e i r daughter. The wife contends she was physically unable t o teach a f t e r 1965 because of i n j u r i e s and childbearing d i s a b i l i t i e s , although she has operated t h e motel from t h e t i m e it w a s pur- chased. The wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h r e e years before t h e divorce t h e husband stopped contributing h i s checks t o the j o i n t accounts of t h e p a r t i e s . However, testimony r e v e a l s t h a t about t h i s t i m e she broke off t h e marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p and took up residence alone i n a new mobile home she purchased with j o i n t funds, t h e value of which was never revealed and t h e t i t l e was placed i n her name. She a l s o purchased a c a r with j o i n t funds and placed t i t l e i n her name. The make and model of t h e c a r was not re- vealed i n t h e proceedings. The husband owns a 1966 Ford pickup. Testimony a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h i s period of time before t h e divorce could have been c l o s e r t o two years than t h r e e . During t h i s period of time u n t i l t h e hearing on t h e divorce, she supported herself and son from j o i n t funds and motel earnings. The testimony is a t b e s t confused concerning t h e p a r t i e s ' savings accounts and checking accounts which were j o i n t accounts. Account #I2604 with t h e Ehpire Federal Saving and Loan Association, i n t h e name of J e a n e t t e R. & Roman Fautsch, a s t r u s t e e s f o r Stanley 2 . Fautsch, t h e i r son, was closed on June 3 0 , 1972. The balance a t t h a t time was $3,715.51. The wife claims t h e account w a s closed, but immediately reopened, thereby eliminating t h e husband's name from t h e account. There was, however, no evidence presented t o t h e c o u r t verifying t h e reopening, only a letter from t h e bank showing t h a t it had been closed. Another savings account, #7136, w a s closed a t Empire Federal Savings and Loan Association, which was i n j o i n t tenancy between t h e p a r t i e s . A t t h e time it was closed t h e balance was $634.84. There was testimony from t h e wife t h a t t h e r e w a s $1,900 i n savings a t Empire Federal Savings and Loan Association. Whether account #7136 is t h e account she is r e f e r r i n g t o i s not made p l a i n from t h e evidence presented. The husband a l s o claims t h e r e is a loan of $4,000 by t h e wife t o a r e l a t i v e from a j o i n t account i n a Spokane savings account, i n t h e w i f e ' s name. Testimony a l s o reveals the gross earnings from t h e motel i n 1972 may not be c o r r e c t , and t h e r e i s some confusion concern- ing t h e o r i g i n a l purchase p r i c e . The c o u r t awarded both p a r t i e s a divorce; custody of t h e minor c h i l d was awarded t o t h e mother with $150 per month c h i l d support u n t i l majority. The wife was awarded t h e motel s u b j e c t t o its indebtedness. The c o u r t ordered t h e husband t o provide h o s p i t a l and medical c a r e f o r the c h i l d and wife. The husband was awarded the balance due on t h e house c o n t r a c t i n t h e amount of $6,235.56 and t h e court a l s o provided t h a t i f t h e wife ever desired t o s e l l t h e motel t h e proceeds i n excess of $50,000 would be divided equally between t h e p a r t i e s . There is no question the husband d i d not c o n t r i b u t e an equal share o r more t o t h e j o i n t a s s e t s accumulated during a marriage i n excess of 20 years. The c o u r t found n e i t h e r p a r t y t o be a t f a u l t i n awarding t h e decree of divorce. There is no c r e d i b l e evidence t o j u s t i f y an unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e assets of t h e marriage. Only t h e wife and husband t e s t i f i e d before t h e court. She claims t o have been injured bearing h i s children and i n the 1965 accident and t h i s seems t o be a b a s i s f o r preference. Yet, no independent evidence of her condition was produced nor could counsel enlighten t h i s Court i n o r a l argument. Funds a r e claimed by t h e wife a s a r e s u l t of t h e 1965 accident but no s u b s t a n t i a l o r c l e a r evidence was offered t o support t h i s a s s e r t i o n . There seems t o have been an award f o r the wrongful death of the daughter, damages to the son and wife but no evidence of the amounts involved or the husband's interest in these awards. The testimony is clear that the wife handled the business accounts and assets for the family and she has not met her burden in accounting for them. The evidence in these areas is vague and confusing as well as in conflict. This Court will not disturb findings of the district court where supported and justified by substantial evidence. Judson, Administrator v. Anderson, 118 Mont. 106, 117, 165 P.2d 198. However, this Court cannot affirm a judgment where there is insufficient credible evidence to sup- port it. We therefore affirm that portion of the judgment award- ing the parties a divorce and the wife custody of the minor child, but remand for further hearing the property settlement portion of the judgment. Specifically, a determination must be made of how much money was awarded to the parties for the death of their daughter caused by the 1965 automobile accident; how much of that amount was awarded the parties for a wrongful death action; and how much was awarded to members of the family individually for injuries suffered from the accident, and the husband's share of the wife's award. Expert medical testimony should be presented to the court demonstrating the exact nature of the wife's medical problem, and the extent of disability caused by these medical problems. There should be expert testimony as to the present value of The Sleeping Giant Motel, the trailer house, and automobile purchased by the wife from joint funds. There should also be some type of record offered to provide an accounting of the motel's income for the past three years. Finally, there must be a complete disclosure by both parties of the money each of them have in savings accounts, checking accounts, safety deposit boxes or whatever. All joint assets accumulated during the marriage and their disposition should be revealed to the court. The judgment of the district court granting the divorce and custody of the minor child is affirmed. The distribution of the property award by the court is reversed and remanded for further hearing not A,,- * I' . '6 , ! , , / .?- - - , - - - 2 % -c L - L t 2 = 2 & ---- - & - , A ^ ^ _ Chief Justice Justices (j