Title: MARRIAGE OF SUNDSTROM

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ELIZABETH A. SUNDSTROM, Petitioner and Respondent, -vs- CHARLES SUNDSTROM, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Beaverhead, The Honorable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Schultz, Davis & Warren, Dillon, Montana For Respondent: W. G . Gilbert, 111, Dillon, Montana Filed: Submitted on Briefs: February 25, 1981 Decided: March 12, 1981 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. Husband appeals from a judgment entered by t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , awarding wife main- tenance. The D i s t r i c t Court dissolved t h i s marriage on September 4 , 1979 and reserved t h e i s s u e of property d i v i s i o n . After t r i a l on t h e property i s s u e , the c o u r t entered i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law on June 3, 1980, and awarded wife $35,000, payable $10,000 i n cash and $25,000 i n monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s over an eight-year period. The c o u r t awarded a l l of t h e property, t o t a l i n g approximately $67,000 i n e q u i t i e s , t o t h e husband excepting s e v e r a l i t e m s of personal property r e t a i n e d by t h e wife. Husband then moved t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions and t h e c o u r t modified i t s order by decreasing t h e w i f e ' s award t o $30,000, payable $10,000 i n cash and $20,000 a t 1 0 per c e n t per annum, payable i n monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s , commencing August 15, 1980, i n t h e amount of $305.35 and continuing u n t i l 96 payments w e r e made. The c o u r t then found t h a t a maintenance award i n t h e amount of $100 per month should be made commencing August 15, 1980, and should be paid on t h e 15th day of each succeed- i n g month f o r a period of 15 years b u t then provided t h a t no maintenance payment should be made i n any months i n which husband made t h e payment of $305.35. The order i s n o t c l e a r whether t h e payment of maintenance i s d e f e r r e d o r whether t h e p a r t i c u l a r maintenance payment due i s forgiven by t h e property settlement payment. The p a r t i e s , i n t h e i r b r i e f s , have t r e a t e d t h e payment a s forgiven and w e w i l l invoke t h e d o c t r i n e of implied f i n d i n g s t o support t h a t p o s i t i o n . The r e s u l t is, should husband make h i s r e g u l a r property s e t t l e m e n t payments of $305.35 each month, a maintenance award w i l l be forgiven f o r e i g h t years; then maintenance w i l l commence with t h e termination of 96 property s e t t l e m e n t payments and w i l l run f o r a period of seven years. The s o l e i s s u e on t h i s appeal i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n granting a maintenance award a s o u t l i n e d above. Appellant husband contends t h a t respondent wife was n o t e n t i t l e d t o maintenance because she i s employed. Appellant r e l i e s upon s e c t i o n 40-4-203(1), MCA, which provides t h a t t h e r e c i p i e n t may be awarded maintenance i f : " ( a ) l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t property t o provide f o r h i s [or h e r l reasonable needs, and (b) i s unable t o support himself Tar hersePf] through appropriate employment . . ." The D i s t r i c t Court d i d not make a finding r e s p e c t i n g t h e reasonable needs of t h e wife. However, t h e standard of l i v i n g p r i o r t o d i s s o l u t i o n i s well documented. Throughout t h e marriage t h e husband worked f u l l - t i m e i n t h e w i l d l i f e management f i e l d and t h e wife worked part-time a s a s e c r e t a r y o r bookkeeper. Husband and wife, j u s t p r i o r t o divorce, l i v e d on an income i n excess of $20,000 per year. A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l wife o f f e r e d an e x h i b i t showing l i v i n g expenses of approximately $400 per month and a n e t take-home pay f o r t h e wife of $464.98 per month. Did t h e d i s t r i c t judge err i n granting maintenance where w i f e ' s n e t take-home pay exceeded her monthly l i v i n g expenses? W e think not. Mont. I n Marriage of Cromwell (1979), , 588 P.2d 1 0 1 0 , 36 St.Rep. 60, t h i s Court s e t a maintenance award under f a c t s s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r t o t h e case a t bar. I n Cromwell t h e husband, a law professor a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y of Montana Law School, had gross earnings of approximately $25,000 per year. Wife in that case was averaging about $500 per month in net income from performing as a relief nurse. Wife was given the family residence. The District Court found the wife's reasonable monthly living expenses to be $789.50 per month and granted wife maintenance in the amount of $250 per month for the ensuing 12 months, $125 per month during the succeeding 18 months and none thereafter. The Supreme Court reversed and established maintenance of $400 per month, including $100 per month for retirement, giving wife a total of $900 per month. In Cromwell the court noted the maintenance statute previously set forth. In making the award the court considered the standard of living achieved during the marriage and the husband's ability to provide continuing support. In this case the monthly payment of $305.35 was ordered as a "buy-out" of the wife's interest in marital assets. If the wife is forced to invade these payments for purposes of supplementing her monthly income, then she is forced to con- sume property acquired during the marriage while, at the same time, the husband is making an investment of $305.35. The net effect is that wife's net worth would continually be diminished while the husband's net worth would correspondingly be increased. By suspending maintenance payments during the eight-year period of time the property settlement payments are being made, the wife may well be forced to reduce her marital holdings to meet monthly living expenses. Arguably this would not be so if the wife continued to live as frugally as she is apparently living at the present time. However, if she were to maintain any semblance of the standard of living existing during the marriage, such an invasion of her apportioned assets would be mandatory. Assuming t h a t t h e husband makes t h e monthly payment of $305.35 f o r e i g h t years, thereby purchasing h i s w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n m a r i t a l a s s e t s , a maintenance award of $100 per month w i l l commence i n e i g h t years. Given p r e s e n t i n f l a - t i o n a r y trends, t h e maintenance award granted w i l l be of l i t t l e value. W e f i n d nothing p r e j u d i c i a l t o a p p e l l a n t husband i n t h e c o u r t ' s award of maintenance. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: ca~;y- 2. J u s t i c e s