Title: LATUS v LATUS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12428 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1973 MARY S O M E R V E L L LATUS , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -VS - D A L E N E L S O N LATUS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Ross Cannon and Donald Garrity argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Risken and Scribner, Helena, Montana A. W. Scribner argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: October 1, 1973 Decided : DE,C 1 8 1973 Filed: DEC 1 8 1973 Hon. Paul G. Hatfield, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison, delivered the Opinion of the Court. P l a i n t i f f appellant Mary Somervell Latus and defendant respondent Dale Nelson Latus were married i n Whitestone, Virginia, December 28, 1943. Upon the husband's discharge from t h e United States Navy i n 1947, they moved t o Helena, Montana, where the hus- band s t a r t e d an electronics business. A t t h a t time t h e i r son, George, now 28 years old, was five. He has a s i s t e r who i s now 23. Nothing extraordinary happened within the marriage re- lationship u n t i l 1951 o r 1952 when the wife began t o evidence signs of mental i n s t a b i l i t y , which apparently became progressively worse, u n t i l she required hospitalization i n 1957, and l a t e r . O n June 11, 1963, the wife f i l e d f o r divorce. O n July 15, 1963, Judge John B. McCleman, a f t e r a lengthy conference i n Chambers with counsel f o r both p a r t i e s and, according t o the hus- band, a short conference with him, entered an order f o r $250 per month temporary support f o r the wife. The wife a t t h i s time had l e f t the family home and children, although her daughter did accompany her mother a t times on d i f f e r e n t travels. Nothing further was done u n t i l the divorce was heard in July 1972, o r 108 months l a t e r . I n August 1963 the husband commenced making support pay- ments of $250 a month a s ordered, f o r a t o t a l i n 1963 of $1,25O,and i n 1964 of $3,000. The court found he paid $3,000 i n 1965, a l - though the wife disputes t h i s . He paid only $950 i n 1967 and $1,050 i n 1968, f o r a t o t a l of $9,950. I n addition the court found and credited the husband with $1,000 which he paid t o the S t a t e of Montana Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s f o r hospitalization of t h e wife. The court a l s o credited the husband with one-half of the mortgage payments he had made on the j o i n t tenancy house i n the sum of $7,376, making the t o t a l c r e d i t t o the husband i n the amount of $18,326. The payment of $250 per month f o r 108 months i s $27,000 and subtracting the $18,326 credited t o t h e husband should r e s u l t i n the sum of $8,674, o r $500 more than was found by the t r i a l judge, and t h i s amount i s now owing from the husband t o the wife. I n addition, the court ordered the husband t o e i t h e r s e l l the j o i n t tenancy house and give the wife one-half of t h e pro- ceeds or pay the wife $10,000 a s her one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e j o i n t tenancy house. The wife i s c r i t i c a l of c r e d i t i n g t h e husband with t h e $7,376 mortgage payments, and the husband has cross-appealed because the wife was given an i n t e r e s t i n the j o i n t tenancy house. W e f e e l t h i s matter was properly within the t r i a l c o u r t ' s discretion and w i l l not be disturbed. The t r i a l judge then found the husband was e n t i t l e d t o a divorce from the wife, and the wife was not e n t i t l e d t o a divorce from the husband. The t r i a l judge disposed of the j o i n t property, a s s t a t e d above, and ordered the husband pay the delinquent support payments i n installments of $150 per month. The main appeal and cross-appeal i s the application of section 21-137, R.C.M. 1947, t o t h i s f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n and whether the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given i n Woehler v. Woehler, 107 Mont. 69, 71, 73, 81 P. 2d 344, applies. Woehler was an appeal from a modification by t h e t r i a l judge of past due support payments with a contempt proceeding. I n the i n s t a n t case, the wife main- t a i n s she was only applying f o r a lump sum judgment so t h a t she could execute and, therefore, there i s a d i s t i n c t i o n and a difference i n t h i s case than there was i n the application of section 21-137, R.C.M. 1947, i n Woehler. The court made the following order i n Woehler: "Now, therefore, i t i s ordered, adjudged and decreed, and t h i s does order, adjudge and decree, t h a t the aforesaid decree, entered herein on June 21, 1930, be, and the same hereby i s modi- f i e d so a s t o require the p l a i n t i f f t o pay t o de- fendant each month, from and a f t e r October 1, 1936, the sum of $50 f o r the care and maintenance of the above-named defendant, and no more, except a s here- i n a f t e r provided. "It i s f u r t h e r ordered, adjudged and decreed, and t h i s does f u r t h e r order, adjudge and decree, t h a t said p l a i n t i f f be required, and he is hereby required, t o pay t o defendant each month, i n addi- t i o n t o the said s u m of f i f t y d o l l a r s hereinabove provided f o r , the sum of twenty-five d o l l a r s t o apply on monthly payments previously due defendant and f o r which p l a i n t i f f i s now i n default, and t h a t no other o r f u r t h e r payments by p l a i n t i f f t o defendant of moneys i n defaultn a s aforesaid, s h a l l be required of said p l a i n t i f f . The t r i a l judge i n the i n s t a n t case ordered: "4. That t h e accrued arrearage i n support payments under the order of t h i s court dated July 16, 1963, hereby declared and adjudged t o be i n the sum of Eight Thousand one-hundred-seventy-four Dollars ($8,174), with i n t e r e s t a t the l e g a l r a t e of s i x per cent (6%) from and a f t e r the date of t h i s decree, s h a l l be paid by the defendant t o the plain- t i f f i n the following manner: Sixty-three (63) equal successive monthly installments of principal and i n t e r e s t i n the t o t a l monthly sum of One-hundred- f i f t y Dollars ($150), the f i r s t such installment t o be due and payable on August 10, 1972, and each suc- cessive installment t o be due and payable on the 10th day of the month following. The defendant s h a l l have the option t o prepay the e n t i r e principal balance a t any time before the f i n a l due date, the amount of such principal payment a t such time outstanding t o be computed upon an appropriate amortization schedule. I I I n Woehler, a f t e r c i t i n g Section 5769, now section 21-137, R.C.M. t h i s Court stated: I I The l a s t sentence i n the above section makes it c l e a r t h a t t h e enforcement of the f i n a l judgment i n such an action may be controlled by orders of t h e court, i n the exercise of its d i s - cretion. While the s t a t u t e does n o t expressly mention past due installments, it seems t o us t h a t i t s terms a r e broad enough t o comprehend delinquent installments, and t h a t , i n f a c t , the l e g i s l a t u r e i n enacting its provisions was actuated more by the consideration of delinquent than by future installments. 11 It should be remembered t h a t there i s here no modification of the decree i n respect t o the amount due. The order r e l a t e s only t o the enforcement of the decree. That order a l s o , by the concluding clause i n section 5769 [section 21-137, R.C.M.19471, i s subject t o future a l t e r a t i o n , variation o r revocation a t t h e discretion of the court. h he court had jurisdiction t o make the order so f a r a s it relates t o the enforcement of the decree a s t o past due alimony." (Emphasis added). This i s what t h e t r i a l court did i n the i n s t a n t case. W e see no reason why a d i s t i n c t i o n should be made between the support payments i n Woehler and the temporary support payments i n t h i s case. The only difference appears t o be t h a t enforcement was attempted by contempt proceedings i n Woehler, and by application f o r a money judgment i n t h i s case. W e a r e dealing with temporary support ordered under section 21-137, R.C.M. 1947, a s opposed t o f i n a l orders under section 21-139, R.C.M. 1947. The above quotation from Woehler applies equally t o t h i s case. See also: Kelly v. Kelly, 117 Mont. 239, 157 P.2d 780; Porter v. Porter, 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538. The wife i s vehement i n her statement t h a t t h e t r i a l judge could not a l l o c a t e o r c r e d i t one-half of the mortgage payments made i n the sum of $7,376. However, the t r i a l judge i n h i s division of the j o i n t property found the wife w a s e n t i t l e d t o $10,000, or a t l e a s t $10,000, f o r her investment of $7,376. The wife s t a t e s i n several instances t h a t t h e t r i a l judge abused h i s discretion i n some of t h e above matters. However, the statement i n Porter by t h i s Court, applies here: 11 W e f e e l an approved composite position simply s t a t e d would be: a reviewing court i s never j u s t i f i e d i n substituting i t s discretion f o r t h a t of the t r i a l court. I n determining whether t h e t r i a l court abused i t s discretion, the ques- t i o n i s not whether the reviewing court agrees with the t r i a l court, but, r a t h e r , did the t r i a l court i n the exercise of i t s discretion a c t a r b i - t r a r i l y without the employment of conscientious judgment o r exceed t h e bounds of reason, i n view of a l l the circumstances, ignoring recognized principles r e s u l t i n g i n substantial i n j u s t i c e . 11 The t r i a l judge did not abuse h i s discretion and, there- fore, the judgment i s affirmed, except t h a t the judgment i s modified from $8,174 t o $8,674, o r $500 more than was found by the t r i a l court, a mathematical e r r o r , a s s e t out above. oncur: d , Hon. Paul G. Hatfield, s i t t i n f o r J u s t i c e John Conway Har &on L