Title: WILSON v BEAN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

NO. 80-384 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 CLIFFORD 0 . WILSON, Petitioner and Appellant, VS . TEENA BEAN, Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli. Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Persson and Weber, Hamilton, Montana For Respondent: Charles H. Recht, Hamilton, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 17, 1981 Decided : MAY 1 9 1981 Filed: ~m i g 198t M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t P e t i t i o n e r C l i f f o r d 0. Wilson a p p e a l s from an o r d e r e n t e r e d i n District C o u r t , R a v a l l i County, awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and costs t o h i s ex-wife Teena Bean. The award was e n t e r e d pur- s u a n t t o p r o c e e d i n g s brought by C l i f f o r d Wilson to e s t a b l i s h v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , f o l l o w i n g d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e . The m a r r i a g e of C l i f f o r d 0. Wilson and Teena Bean was d i s s o l v e d i n t h e S t a t e of Washington i n 1974. Teena Bean was awarded c u s t o d y of t h e i r one c h i l d , C h r i s t o p h e r Wilson. C l i f f o r d Wilson was g r a n t e d v i s i t a t i o n f o r a p e r i o d of one month t o s i x weeks each summer. C l i f f o r d Wilson and Teena Bean s u b s e q u e n t l y moved t o R a v a l l i County, Montana, and e s t a b l i s h e d i n f o r m a l v i s i - t a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s c o n c e r n i n g C h r i s t o p h e r . Following a d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r v i s i t a t i o n , C l i f f o r d Wilson f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s e e k i n g e i t h e r c u s t o d y or a s c h e d u l e of v i s i t a t i o n . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on August 15, 1980. The d i s t r i c t judge found: (1) Teena Bean had i n s u f f i c i e n t f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t o pay r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s and costs; ( 2 ) t h e a c t i o n was b r o u g h t by Wilson w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o h a r a s s and vex Bean; ( 3 ) Bean was e n t i t l e d t o an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s ; and ( 4 ) Wilson was e n t i t l e d t o r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . Wilson was o r d e r e d t o pay Bean $1,490 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and $20 i n costs. P e t i t i o n e r Wilson r a i s e d two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1) Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a c t i o n was brought to vex and h a r a s s t h e r e s p o n d e n t , t h u s a l l o w i n g an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 40-4-219, M C A ? 2 ) Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t Teena Bean had i n s u f f i c i e n t f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s and w a s e n t i t l e d to a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 40-4-110, M C A ? The judgment does n o t s p e c i f y whether f e e s were awarded p u r s u a n t t o o n l y one or both of t h e s t a t u t e s . But we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g of i n s u f f i c i e n t f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s . T h e r e f o r e we a f f i r m t h e award on t h a t b a s i s , and f i n d it unnecessary to a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n of v e x a t i o u s and h a r a s s i n g l i t i g a t i o n . I n o r d e r to be awarded f e e s p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, t h e p e t i t i o n i n g p a r t y must make a showing of n e c e s s i t y . Knudsen v. Knudsen ( 1 9 8 0 ) , ---- Mont . - - , 606 P.2d 130, 135, 37 St.Rep. 147, 153. The award must be r e a s o n a b l e , and must be based on competent e v i d e n c e . B i e r v. S h e r r a r d (1981), Mont . , 623 P.2d 550, 554, 38 St.Rep. 158, 163; Green v. Green (1979 1 I Mont . ---- , 593 P.2d 446, 450, 36 St.Rep. 708, 713. Reasonableness is shown by means of a h e a r i n g a l l o w i n g f o r o r a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x h i b i t s , and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine. S h e r r a r d , s u p r a . The award w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d by t h i s Court i f it is supported by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Kaasa v . Kaasa ( 1 9 7 9 ) , ---- Mont . , 591 P.2d 1110, 1114, 36 St.Rep. 425, 430. The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e August 1 5 h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t Teena Bean was w i t h o u t r e s o u r c e s . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e w a s i n d e b t and l i v i n g on borrowed funds, and t h a t h e r husband was p r e s e n t l y away from home l o o k i n g f o r work. C l i f f o r d Wilson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was n o t p r e s e n t l y employed, b u t l i v e d on h i s c i v i l s e r v i c e r e t i r e m e n t . P e t i t i o n e r - h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t Teena Bean h a s ample r e s o u r c e s , p o i n t i n g to Teena 's e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , h e r husband I s assets, and t h e f a c t t h a t she has a p p a r e n t l y supported h e r s e l f s i n c e t h e d i s s o l u t i o n . H e d i d cross-examine h e r a b o u t h e r husband I s assets, b u t p r e s e n t e d no t e s t i m o n y to r e f u t e h e r showing of need, or to show t h a t he lacked r e s o u r c e s to pay t h e award. Teena Bean's a t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had expended 29.8 h o u r s a t $50 an hour, and o u t l i n e d h i s s e r v i c e s f o r t h e c o u r t . H e c a l l e d M r . McKenna, a n o t h e r R a v a l l i County a t t o r n e y , to t e s t i f y as to t h e normal f e e s charged. M r . McKenna i n d i c a t e d t h a t $50 a n h o u r was u s u a l and r e a s o n a b l e . H e was n o t cross-examined by p e t i t i o n e r - h u s b a n d . I n sum, w e f i n d t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d as t o t h e n e c e s s i t y of t h e f e e s , and as to t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e f e e s . W e w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e District Court i f t h e f i n d i n g s are s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e Y W e conc'ur: n M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea w i l l f i l e a s p e c i a l c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n later.