Title: MALLEY v MALLEY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

NO. 80-24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 DAVID EUGENE MALLEY, Respondent and Appellant, -vs- PATRICIA MARIE MALLEY, Petitioner and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court-Of t h e 'First Judicial District, In.and For the County of Lewis and Clark, The Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: David E. Malley, Pro Se, Helena, MJntana For Respondent : William McCarvel, Spokane, Washington Submitted on Briefs: July 10, 1980 ~ecided: NOV 1 8 1980 Filed: ROV 1 8 .fl.-& Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. David Eugene Malley, appearing p r o set a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n e n t e r e d by t h e L e w i s and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t Court upon t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of h i s marriage. B e c a u s e t h e r e is no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h i s h e a r i n g , w e a r e compelled t o v a c a t e t h e judgment and o r d e r another h e a r i n g s o t h a t a r e c o r d can be made. The w i f e , P a t r i c i a Marie Malley, f i l e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e marriage on A p r i l 3 , 1979. The c o u p l e had been m a r r i e d s i n c e June 26, 1975 and had no c h i l d r e n . Each p a r t y , however, had been p r e v i o u s l y m a r r i e d , and each had c h i l d r e n by a p r e v i o u s marriage. N e i t h e r t h e w i f e nor t h e husband adopted any o f t h e o t h e r ' s c h i l d r e n . The husband is a s a l e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and t h e w i f e is a s e c r e t a r y . The husband d i d n o t f o r m a l l y respond t o t h e w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n , b u t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n two t r i a l c o u r t h e a r i n g s . The w i f e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t t r i a l and is now r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l i n t h i s a p p e a l . There is pending b e f o r e u s a motion t o d i s m i s s by w i f e ' s counsel because t h e husband h a s f a i l e d t o " c i t e any p l e a d i n g , evidence, o r t r i a l testimony which would s e r v e a s a b a s i s f o r h i s argument." The w i f e ' s c o u n s e l wants us t o d i s m i s s t h i s a p p e a l because t h e husband h a s n o t r a i s e d any reviewable i s s u e s . But t h e i s s u e he r a i s e s ( t h e f a i r n e s s of t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n d e c r e e ) can o n l y be reviewed where t h e r e is a r e c o r d of t h e proceedings below. I t would be u n f a i r t o t h e extreme t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l and deny any r e l i e f t o t h e husband where t h e f a i l u r e t o have a r e c o r d cannot be l a i d a t h i s d o o r s t e p . W e should n o t have t o remind a s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y t o l i t i g a t i o n i n D i s t r i c t Court, t h a t t h e judgment o b t a i n e d is placed i n jeopardy where t h e r e is no r e c o r d of t h e proceedings. Following t h e two h e a r i n g s concerning apportionment of t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , t h e w i f e through c o u n s e l , and t h e husband, p r o se, submitted proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . The t r i a l c o u r t v i r t u a l l y adopted v e r b a t i m t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s proposed by counsel f o r t h e wife. The husband now contends i n t h i s a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a n i n e q u i t a b l e H e c l a i m s h i s "pocket is now empty." p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . Although he has n o t f i l e d a b r i e f i n t h i s Court, he a s k s t h i s Court t o review t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and remand t h e c a s e f o r a r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , w e c a n n o t r e v i e w t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n t e n t i o n s because a t r i a l r e c o r d is n e c e s s a r y t o do t h i s . But t h a t is n o t t h e husband's f a u l t . I n Matter of Geary ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 204, 562 P.2d 821, w e s t r e s s e d t h e need f o r a t r i a l record: "Without a t r a n s c r i p t , t h i s Court is placed i n t h e p o s i t i o n of a t t e m p t i n g t o r e c o n s t r u c t a r e c o r d on appeal. Such a t a s k being o f t e n impossible and unnecessary, t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l becomes i l l u s o r y , a r i g h t w i t h o u t substance." That p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s e q u a l l y h e r e . I n Matter of Guardianship of G u l l e t t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 132, 566 P.2d 396, w e r e v e r s e d a c o n t e s t e d c u s t o d y c a s e b e c a u s e t h e h e a r i n g had n o t b e e n recorded s o a s t o e n a b l e e f f e c t i v e a p p e l l a t e review. W e noted i n G u l l e t t e , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court is by s t a t u t e , a c o u r t o f r e c o r d , and t h i s i m p l i e s t h a t a r e c o r d w i l l be k e p t of t h e proceedings. Recently, i n Schneider v. Ostwald (Cause No. 80-118, Decided October 8 , 1 9 8 0 ) , w e s e t a s i d e a t r i a l c o u r t contempt o r d e r because t h e contempt of c o u r t proceedings were n o t recorded. W e must reach t h e same r e s u l t h e r e . The r e c o r d is s i l e n t a s t o why a c o u r t r e p o r t e r was n o t p r e s e n t . But r e a s o n s a s i d e , t h e f a i l u r e t o r e c o r d t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n h e a r i n g s h a s e f f e c t i v e l y denied t h e husband a p p e l l a t e review of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. The judgment is v a c a t e d and t h e c a s e remanded f o r a f u l l h e a r i n g , w i t h p r o c e e d i n g s t o be r e p o r t e d i n a manner s o t h a t a p p e l l a t e review can reach t h e i s s u e s . Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison dissenting: I dissent. Viewing the record here, we have an appellant who has previously had experience in a divorce proceeding, appearing pro se in this case, and now putting the trial court in error for failing to distribute the property properly. The majority rely on our previous holding in In Matter of Guardianship of Gullette (1977), 173 Mont. 132, 566 P.2d 396, a case involv- ing the guardianship of children. I find our holding in that case clearly distinguishable. Here, appellant was offered a full and complete opportunity by the District Court to present his case, to file objections and to have the court consider findings of fact and conclusions of law, prior to the District Court's adoption of same. As I understand the law, failure to object to the court's findings and conclusions bars the raising of the issue on appeal. What the majority holds is that whenever a court reporter is not present, the case will be reversed for lack of a record to be reviewed. This is directly contrary to the presumption of correctness of the judgment of the District Court. Here, appellant went through two hearings without objections and now seeks reversal on a technicality. I would affirm. Mr. Chief Justice Frank I . Haswell dissenting: I concur in the foregoing dissent of Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison. Chief Justice \\