Title: Brandner v. Brandner

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

464 P.2d 508 (1970) Ardella Mae BRANDNER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry C. BRANDNER, Defendant and Appellant. No. 11423. Supreme Court of Montana. February 5, 1970. Frisbee & Moore and J. Allen Bradshaw, Cut Bank, J. Allen Bradshaw, argued, Cut Bank, for appellant. Ardella Mae Whitney, Aberdeen, S.D., for respondent. JAMES T. HARRISON, Chief Justice. Plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce in Toole County, Montana, on November 23, 1965, which provided, among other things, that while plaintiff was granted custody of the children, defendant would have the right of reasonable visitation and would have temporary custody for the month of July each year. On August 3, 1967, defendant petitioned for modification of these provisions contending that plaintiff refused to allow defendant custody of the children during July and that plaintiff was not a fit and proper person to have custody of the children and that defendant was such. The court set a hearing upon the petition for August 11, 1967. Upon the return day plaintiff appeared through counsel, entering a special appearance challenging the jurisdiction of the court over the plaintiff and the minor children, alleging they were residents of the State of South Dakota. Defendant was present with his witnesses but the court would not permit testimony to be taken. *509 Briefs were thereafter filed and on October 4, 1967, the district court sustained plaintiff's position and dismissed defendant's petition on the ground the court had no jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the minor children or power to modify the court's own decree. From this order defendant appealed, contending that there was no showing of a change of domicile upon which the court could base its order, and secondly, even if there was, the court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. In the district court plaintiff relied upon Application of Enke, 129 Mont. 353, 287 P.2d 19, cert. denied Enke v. Baucus, 350 U.S. 923, 100 L. Ed. 808, 76 S. Ct. 212, and later discussions of the rule there laid down contained in State ex rel. Lessley v. District Court, 132 Mont. 357, 318 P.2d 571 and Veseth v. Veseth, 147 Mont. 169, 410 P.2d 930, and the court was convinced the so-called Enke rule should apply to the circumstances of this case. As was stated in the court's memorandum of decision: "Now is there anything about this case that would make it an exception to the general rule in Montana?" The court then went on to set forth briefly the fact situation and concluded: "Apparently, defendant's remedy is to seek custody of his children in South Dakota. Defendant argues the wisdom of the Montana rule and makes good argument against it. However, it is not for this Court to change the law, but to follow it as defined by statute and as interpreted by our own Supreme Court." The rule announced in the Enke case has been called by many text writers and authors of court opinions a "minority view." Two recent cases serve to clarify the situation, both decided since this case was before the district court. The first is Carroll v. White (1968), 151 Mont. 332, 443 P.2d 13, where a mother brought an action to recover custody of two minor children from their father. The parents were divorced in the state of Washington and thereafter the father moved to Montana. The mother permitted the boys to go to their father's residence to spend a month or six weeks with him, the father having agreed to return the boys at the end of that period. He did not return them and following a hearing the district court ordered them returned to their mother in Washington. In our opinion we stated: In Corkill v. Cloninger (1969), 153 Mont. 142, 454 P.2d 911, it appeared that a district court refused to recognize prior custody orders of a California court granting custody to the mother and proceeded to award custody to the father. The mother appealed. The opinion of this Court in that case *510 distinguishes the two lines of authority and overrules the Enke rule in these words: In view of these holdings the district court should assume jurisdiction of the defendant's petition and proceed to hear and determine the same. In view of this holding no necessity appears to discuss the lack of a showing of a change of domicile. The cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed. Each party to bear their own costs on this appeal. CASTLES, JOHN C. HARRISON, HASWELL, and BONNER, JJ., concur.