Title: WILSON v WILSON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 14935 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 LORETTA WILSON, Petitioner and Respondent, VS. KENT EUGENE WILSON, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Larry W . Moran argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Kommers, Lineberger and Johnstone, Bozeman, Montana Gene I . Brown argued, Bozeman, Montana Filed: Submitted: January 18, 1980 Decided : k t 3 6 - ax? M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. his i s an appeal by Kent Eugene Wilson from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n and f o r G a l l a t i n County, t h e Honorable W. W. Lessley presiding, which granted t h e p e t i t i o n of respondent L o r e t t a Wilson f o r a d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage, custody of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s , support of s a i d minor c h i l d , and a d i v i s i o n of property . The p a r t i e s m e t i n southern C a l i f o r n i a i n 1962 a t which t i m e a p p e l l a n t w a s a d e n t i s t serving a s a c a p t a i n i n t h e m i l i t a r y . When respondent became pregnant, t h e p a r t i e s decided t o o b t a i n a Mexican marriage on t h e advice of appel- l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y . Arrangements w e r e made by s a i d a t t o r n e y and on October 3 , 1962, t h e p a r t i e s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a mar- r i a g e ceremony a t a n a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e i n Tijuana, Mexico. Neither p a r t y has any documentation of t h i s marriage, and a t t o r n e y s a c t i n g on behalf of a p p e l l a n t were l a t e r unable t o f i n d any record of the marriage i n Mexico. Respondent w a s a l s o unsuccessful i n a subsequent attempt t o o b t a i n documentation of t h e marriage i n Mexico. A f t e r t h e Mexican ceremony, t h e p a r t i e s returned t o southern C a l i f o r n i a b u t they never cohabitated. Appellant returned t o t h e F o r t MacArthur d e n t a l base where he w a s s t a t i o n e d i n San Pedro, while respondent returned t o l i v e i n Long Beach. Appellant d i d n o t pay respondent's r e n t o r food expenses o r otherwise support h e r , nor d i d she ever r e c e i v e a m i l i t a r y allotment a s a dependant spouse. Respondent was working a t t h i s t i m e . There remains a d i s p u t e as t o whether t h e p a r t i e s ever considered themselves married. Nevertheless, a p p e l l a n t took respondent t o F o r t MacAurthur where he r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t she w a s h i s w i f e and obtained a m i l i t a r y I . D . and medical p r i v - i l e g e s f o r her. I n December of 1962, two months a f t e r t h e t r i p t o Mexico, a p p e l l a n t resigned h i s m i l i t a r y commission and l e f t t h e S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a . H e had t o l d respondent t h a t he was going on a hunting t r i p f o r a couple of weeks. Subsequently, respondent l o c a t e d a p p e l l a n t i n Indiana. The p a r t i e s ' c h i l d was born on A p r i l 15, 1963, and on J u l y 7, 1964, respondent sought and obtained a p a t e r n i t y d e c r e e a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t i n t h e E l k h a r t (Indiana) C i c u i t Court. The decree s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was born " o u t of wedlock" and it ordered a p p e l l a n t t o pay $65.33 p e r month i n c h i l d support. Appellaht has made t h e s e payments s i n c e t h e d a t e of t h e decree. I n contemplation of h i s marriage t o h i s p r e s e n t w i f e and because he w a s unsure o f h i s m a r i t a l s t a t u s , a p p e l l a n t i n i t i a t e d proceedings i n 1966 f o r a n annulment o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a decree of d i v o r c e from respondent. This s u i t was f i l e d i n t h e Superior Court of Lincoln County i n t h e S t a t e of Washington, where a p p e l l a n t r e s i d e d . These proceedings w e r e dropped when respondent f i l e d a c r o s s complaint. Appellant t e s t i f i e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t he dropped t h e s u i t because he had been advised by h i s a t t o r n e y t h a t t h e r e was no marriage and t h e r e f o r e no need t o o b t a i n a n annulment o r divorce. Nothing f u r t h e r was done by e i t h e r p a r t y u n t i l t h e p r e s e n t s u i t was f i l e d by respondent i n t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t Court on November 30, 1978. Appellant has been a r e s i d e n t of t h e S t a t e of Montana s i n c e 1971. H e i s a n o r t h o d o n t i s t and h i s annual income f o r 1978 was approximately $60,000. I n a d d i t i o n he i s purchasing a r e s i d e n c e and an o f f i c e b u i l d i n g and has o t h e r a s s e t s . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s capable of paying t h e support payments ordered by t h e District Court. Respondent i s employed i n Long Beach, C a l i f o r n i a as a darkroom t e c h n i c i a n w i t h a take-home pay of $238 every two weeks. She i s a d o m i c i l i a r y and a r e s i d e n t of C a l i f o r n i a . Other than h e r c o u r t appearance i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , she has never been i n t h e S t a t e of Montana. The same i s t r u e of t h e minor c h i l d , Kentanne Mary Wilson, who i s now s i x t e e n y e a r s o l d . P r i o r t o t h e t r i a l of t h i s c a s e she had never seen h e r n a t u r a l f a t h e r . The minor c h i l d was born w i t h a c o n g e n i t a l h i p problem and has numerous o t h e r medical problems. H e r medical expenses have been considerable. Appellant, Kent Eugene Wilson, s p e c i a l l y appeared chal- lenging t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . The c h a l l e n g e was o v e r r u l e d , and t h e case w a s heard on i t s m e r i t s by t h e D i s t r i c t Judge on May 21, 1979. O n June 18, 1979 f i n d i n g s of f a c t w e r e e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t determining (1) t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e married i n Tijuana, Mexico on October 3, 1962; ( 2 ) t h a t a p p e l l a n t d e s e r t e d respondent i n December 1962; ( 3 ) t h a t t h e marriage i s i r r e t r i e v a b l y broken; ( 4 ) t h a t respondent i s a f i t and proper person t o have custody of t h e minor c h i l d ; (5) t h a t a p p e l l a n t has r e f u s e d t o s u p p o r t t h e minor c h i l d e x c e p t f o r t h e payment of t h e sum of $65.33 p e r month a s ordered by t h e E l k h a r t (Indiana) C i r c u i t Court o r d e r d a t e d J u l y 7, 1964; ( 6 ) t h a t a p p e l l a n t has accumulated p r o p e r t y and i s capable of paying t h e sum of $200 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e minor c h i l d u n t i l she reaches t h e age of m a j o r i t y ; and ( 7 ) t h a t respondent i s e n t i t l e d t o an award of a p a r t of t h e p r o p e r t y accumulated by a p p e l l a n t d e s p i t e t h e fact t h a t she d i d n o t a s s i s t i n t h e a c c ~ I n u l a t i o n of property. On t h e b a s i s of t h e s e f i n d i n g s , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d he following conclusions of law and e n t e r e d judgment ( a ) t h a t t h e marriage of t h e p a r t i e s is d i s s o l v e d ; ( b ) t h a t respondent be granted custody of t h e minor c h i l d and t h a t a p p e l l a n t pay $200 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t t o g e t h e r w i t h p r e s e n t and f u t u r e medical and d e n t a l expenses; (c) t h a t respondent be awarded t h e sum of $15,000, p l u s reasonable a t t o r n e y s f e e s . I t i s from t h i s judgment t h a t t h e appeal i s taken. Two i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review by t h i s Court: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r L o r e t t a Wilson' s p e t i t i o n and e n t e r judgment ( a ) g r a n t i n g a d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage and ( b ) modifying t h e Indiana s u p p o r t decree? 2. Does t h e evidence support t h e f i n d i n g s of a v a l i d marriage between t h e p a r t i e s and t h e p r o p e r t y award t o re- spondent? The f i r s t i s s u e t o be considered i s whether o r n o t t h e D i s t r i c t Court had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o consider L o r e t t a Wilson's p e t i t i o n and e n t e r judgment g r a n t i n g a d i s s o l u t i o n of mar- r i a g e . The Indiana p a t e r n i t y s u i t e s t a b l i s h e d a p p e l l a n t a s t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r of respondent's c h i l d and it decreed support. Although t h e decree s t a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d was born " o u t of wedlock", t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e Mexican marriage w a s n o t l i t i g a t e d i n t h e Indiana p a t e r n i t y s u i t , and it i s n o t res j u d i c a t a on t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s . I t i s n o t a q u e s t i o n o f c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l , s i n c e t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n - s h i p of t h e p a r t i e s w a s n o t an e s s e n t i a l o r m a t e r i a l f a c t i n t h e p a t e r n i t y s u i t , nor was t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s determined i n t h a t a c t i o n . Western Mont. Prod. Assn. v . ~ y d r o p o n i c s , Inc. (1966), 147 Mont. 157, 410 P.2d 937. The m a r i t a l s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s was immaterial t o t h e p a t e r n i t y s u i t , because t h e same r e l i e f , i - e . , c h i l d support, would have been decreed r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r m a r i t a l s t a t u s . Ap- p e l l a n t ' s duty t o support e x i s t e d i r r e s p e c t i v e of h i s m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and h i s m a r i t a l s t a u s would n o t have been a defense. The reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e p a r t i e s i s n o t r e l e v a n t o r m a t e r i a l t o a determination of t h e i s s u e s i n t h e p a t e r n i t y s u i t , where t h e s o l e i s s u e i s p a t e r n i t y and t h e concomitant o b l i g a t i o n t o support. S t a t e v. P a t t o n (1936), 102 Mont. 51, 55 P.2d 1290, 1293, 104 A L R 76 (decided under former s t a t u t e ; f o r p r e s e n t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , see Montana Uniform Parentage A c t , § 40-6-101, MCA, e t s e q . ) . " I n b a s t a r d y proceedings, t h e o n l y i s s u e i s whether o r n o t t h e accused i s t h e f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d . . ." Annot. 104 A L R 84. I t may be t r u e t h a t t h e Indiana C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d was born " o u t of wedlock" encompasses a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e never married, s i n c e Montana c a s e s recognize t h a t " a decree of t h e c o u r t s t a n d s a s an a b s o l u t e f i n a l i t y ' n o t merely a s t o t h e conclusions expressed, b u t a s t o everything d i r e c t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y involved i n reaching them. ' " Link v . S t a t e e x rel. Department of F i s h and G a m e (1979) - Mont. - , 591 P.2d 214, 219, 36 St.Rep. 355, 361, quoting Missoula L i g h t & Water Co. v. Hughes (1938), 106 Mont. 355, 366, 77 P.2d 1041, 1047. The e n t i r e q u e s t i o n of whether o r n o t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e married, however, had nothing t o do w i t h t h e i s s u e s i n t h e Indiana p a t e r n i t y s u i t . Therefore, d e s p i t e t h a t c o u r t ' s pronouncement t h a t t h e c h i l d was born " o u t of wedlock", t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s was n o t " n e c e s s a r i l y l i t i g a t e d and determined" i n t h e p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n . Hence respondent i s n o t c o l l a t e r a l l y estopped from a s s e r t i n g h e r marriage t o a p p e l l a n t , and t h e D i s t r i c t Court had j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n h e r p e t i t i o n and g r a n t a d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage. The f a c t t h a t t h e 1964 Indiana p a t e r n i t y decree i s longstanding and has n o t been appealed does n o t a l t e r t h i s conclusion. The r u l e i s t h a t "a judgment n o t appealed from i s conclusive between t h e p a r t i e s as t o a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d by pleadings a c t u a l l y l i t i g a t e d and adjudged a s shown on t h e f a c e of t h e judgment and reasonably determined i n o r d e r t o --- reach t h e conclusion announced." Link, supra, 591 P.2d a t -- 219 (emphasis added); Simon v. Simon (1969), 154 Mont. 193, 461 P.2d 851, 852-853; B u t l e r v. Brownlee (1969), 152 Mont. 453, 451 P.2d 836, 838; Doull v. Wohlschlager (1963), 141 Mont. 354, 377 P.2d 758, 764; Missoula L i g h t & Water Co. v. Hughes (1938), 106 Mont. 355, 77 P.2d 1041, 1047. The q u e s t i o n of whether o r n o t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e married was n o t " a c t u a l l y l i t i g a t e d and adjudged . . . and reasonably d e t e r - mined i n o r d e r t o reach t h e conclusion announced" i n t h e Indiana p a t e r n i t y s u i t . With t h e i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e marriage resolved i n f a v o r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, t h e r e i s l i t t l e else t o q u a r r e l about. J u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h e d i v o r c e g i v e s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l t h e rest of t h e problems of custody, support and d i v i s i o n of property. S e c t i o n s 40-4-202, 40-4-204, 40-4-208, MCA (1979). Both p a r t i e s have admitted t o what they believed t o be a ceremonial marriage i n Mexico. The marriage was arranged by a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y and each p a r t y has a c t e d a t l e a s t once as though t h e marriage w e r e v a l i d . The respondent f i l e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage and a l l e g e d a l e g a l marriage. he appellant failed to challenge this pleading. If he so desired, he should have pleaded his contentions on the status of the marriage by an affirmative pleading in defense. See Rule 8(c), M.R.Civ.P. The respondant testified that she participated in a regular marriage ceremony at an attorney's office in Tijuana, Mexico. The second issue involved in this appeal is whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the District Court's finding of a valid marriage between the parties and its, property award to respondent. Appellant has not con- tested the reasonableness of the $200 per month award for child support. The evidence presented at the trial of this case has been discussed and will not be repeated here. The defendant-appellant had the burden to overcome the allegation of a legal marriage and failed to do so. This leaves the property awarded to the respondent at issue. Appellant first challenges the jurisdiction of the court to do anything, then criticizes the manner in which the award was made. His criticism is purportedly based on the lack of evidence to support any award since the parties had never lived together, the husband had never contributed to the support of the wife, and the wife had never aided in the building of the marital estate. This may all be true, however, the District Court's jurisdiction is very broad in this area and it is evident the court wanted to award something. The percentage division was not disproportionate under all the circumstances. The court in its findings seemed to be aware of the resources of the appellant and the problems that exist and made a nominal award. There being sufficient credible evidence to support the District Court's decision, the judgment is affirmed. W e concur. TA4pf %& Chief J u s t i c e - > t 1 5- /+ J u s t i c e s / / , / f / Y a 5 . , / J u s t i c e /