Title: MARRIAGE OF JENSEN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-353 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 SHIRLEY RAE JENSEN, Petitioner and Respondent, VS. GORDON STEVEN JENSEN, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula. Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Sadler Law Offices, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Balyeat, Kammerer and Rodli, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 25, 1981 Decided: June 10, 1981 Filed: JUN 1 0 198 - - v Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Appellant and respondent, Gordon Steven Jensen, herein- a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s the husband, appeals from the judgment and order of the D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County, t h e Honorable James B. Wheelis, presiding, entered a f t e r a hearing upon respondent S h i r l e y Rae Jensen's ( w i f e ' s ) p e t i t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c enforcement and modification of t h e decree of d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e i r marriage. The c o u r t ordered t h e husband t o pay $1,035.74 i n back c h i l d support pursuant t o t h e p a r t i e s ' amended separation agreement, and then modified the agreement by increasing f u t u r e monthly c h i l d support payments. F i n a l l y , t h e c o u r t awarded t h e wife reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s , l a t e r determined t o be $1,657.16. W e a f f i r m the d e c i s i o n of t h e lower court. The following i s s u e s w i l l be discussed: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n construing t h e provi- s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s ' separation agreement? 2. Did the c o u r t e r r i n modifying t h e previous divorce decree so a s t o i n c r e a s e f u t u r e c h i l d support payments? 3 . Did t h e c o u r t properly award a t t o r n e y f e e s t o wife? W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment on a l l i s s u e s . W e do not d i s c u s s husband's a l l e g a t i o n t h a t the c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o consider t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s and expenses of Bob Stock, w i f e ' s former l i v e - i n boyfriend; t h a t a l l e g a t i o n i s completely unsupported by t h e record. W e a l s o note t h a t t h e separation agreement i s n o t too vague; f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n w i l l r e s u l t only i f a p a r t y f a i l s t o abide by the c o u r t ' s decision. The p a r t i e s ' marriage was dissolved by decree on January 1 0 , 1977. The decree s p e c i f i c a l l y incorporated a separation agreement executed by t h e p a r t i e s . The separation agreement provided i n p a r t a s follows: 1. t h e wife would have custody of t h e p a r t i e s ' two minor c h i l d r e n ; 2. t h e husband would pay $150 per month t o t a l c h i l d support; 3 . t h e husband would claim both c h i l d r e n a s dependents f o r purposes of taking income t a x exemptions; 4. t h e wife would t a k e t i t l e t o t h e p a r t i e s ' house, which i n c l u d e s income-producing r e n t a l property; and, 5. t h e s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y i n any f u t u r e a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e , modify o r i n t e r p r e t t h e agreement would be awarded reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s . L e s s than one year a f t e r e n t r y of t h e decree of d i s s o l u t i o n , on November 8, 1977, t h e w i f e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o modify t h e decree. The wife a l l e g e d s u b s t a n t i a l changes i n circumstances s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y i n c r e a s i n g c h i l d support payments t o $300 per month. That a c t i o n w a s s e t t l e d when t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e following modifications of t h e i r o r i g i n a l s e p a r a t i o n agreement: (1) each p a r t y was allowed t o claim one c h i l d a s an income t a x exemption; ( 2 ) t h e husband agreed t o pay f o r insurance coverage on t h e w i f e ' s automobile; ( 3 ) t h e husband's monthly c h i l d support payments w e r e increased from $150 t o t a 1 , t o $112.50 p e r c h i l d , f o r a new t o t a l of $225, s u b j e c t t o l a t e r i n c r e a s e s . The above-stated modifications w e r e accepted by t h e D i s t r i c t Court, and t h e o r i g i n a l decree was modified by an o r d e r dated and f i l e d A p r i l 12, 1978. Modification no. 3 above i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h e p r e s e n t d i s p u t e . The f u l l t e x t of t h a t p r o v i s i o n is: "Child Support: [Husband] a g r e e s t o pay t o [wife] a s and f o r s u p p o r t and maintenance of t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e s u m of One Hundred Twelve D o l l a r s and 50/100 ($112.50) p e r month p e r c h i l d . . . I t i s f u r t h e r agreed t h a t i n t h e e v e n t [husband] r e c e i v e s a s [ s i c ] i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y through h i s employment, [wife] s h a l l r e c e i v e a percentage i n c r e a s e i n t h e payment re- ceived f o r c h i l d support, which percentage s h a l l be equal t o t h e percentage change i n t h e s a l a r y of t h e [husband]." The husband is a l i c e n s e d , union plumber. H i s wage r a i s e s s i n c e t h e d a t e of modification ( A p r i l 12, 1978) a r e undisputed. On A p r i l 12, 1978, he was e a r n i n g $11.68 per hour. H i s hourly wage increased t o $12.85 on May 1, 1978, t o $14.06 on J u l y 1, 1978, and t o $15.71 on J u l y 10, 1979. The l a s t r a t e was i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e t h i s a c t i o n was commenced. The last-mentioned hourly wage amounts t o an i n c r e a s e of 34.5 p e r c e n t over t h e A p r i l 12, 1978, wage. Husband's g r o s s y e a r l y e a r n i n g s , however, have n o t i n c r e a s e d by t h e same percentages. Due t o t h e n a t u r e of h i s employment, he does n o t work during v a r i o u s p e r i o d s i n each year. Apparently f o r t h a t reason, h i s g r o s s y e a r l y e a r n i n g s i n 1979 i n c r e a s e d o n l y 9 p e r c e n t over h i s e a r n i n g s i n 1978 ($26,023 i n 1979, $24,212 i n 1978) and h i s n e t e a r n i n g s i n c r e a s e d only 6 p e r c e n t . The husband i n c r e a s e d h i s monthly payments by $25 during t h e months of June, J u l y , August, September and October of 1979. Such i n c r e a s e amounts t o 1 1 p e r c e n t over t h e base support f i g u r e of $225. However, i n November 1979, t h e husband paid o n l y $150 and i n December 1979, he p a i d only $200. Thus s i n c e A p r i l 1978, t h e husband has p a i d a n e t of only $25 more than a t o t a l amount computed a t t h e r a t e of $225 p e r month. The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t f o r t h e year 1978, t h e w i f e ' s income, e x c l u s i v e of c h i l d support, was $5,631.21 and h e r expenses w e r e $8,850.32. The c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t " t h e budget on which [ t h e w i f e ] and h e r two ( 2 ) c h i l d r e n e x i s t does n o t provide f o r t h e reasonably necessary e s s e n t i a l s of l i f e . " The w i f e f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n on J u l y 25, 1979. I n her " P e t i t i o n f o r S p e c i f i c Enforcement and Modification of Decree of D i s s o l u t i o n of Marriage" she prayed f o r a l l back support owed t o her because of t h e husband's i n c r e a s e s i n s a l a r y s i n c e A p r i l 12, 1978, and f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e decree t o provide f o r f u t u r e monthly s u p p o r t payments of $350 per c h i l d . She a l s o requested t h a t her maiden name be r e s t o r e d t o her. The husband responded with h i s own " P e t i t i o n t o Amend" i n which he prayed t h a t t h e c h i l d support p r o v i s i o n be d e c l a r e d n u l l and void, a l l e g i n g t h a t such a p r o v i s i o n i s a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y and w i l l only f o s t e r c o n t i n u a l l i t i g a t i o n . H e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d support f i g u r e of $225 p e r month should remain i n e f f e c t . T r i a l was h e l d on January 23, 1980. Each p a r t y then submitted proposed f i n d i n g s and conclusions, and supporting b r i e f s . The D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d judgment by "Decree Modifying t h e Decree of D i s s o l u t i o n of Marriage." The new decree o r d e r s t h e husband t o pay back support, pursuant t o t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement a s amended, i n t h e amount of $1,035.74; t h a t amount i s equal t o t h e i n c r e a s e s i n support which t h e husband should have paid a s h i s hourly wages rose. The decree a l s o o r d e r s t h e husband t o pay f u t u r e support i n t h e amount of $275 p e r c h i l d , p e r month. The decree provides t h a t a l l o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s of t h e o r i g i n a l s e p a r a t i o n agreement a s amended s h a l l remain e f f e c t i v e . F i n a l l y , t h e decree awards wife reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s , which were determined a t a l a t e r hearing t o be $1,657.16. The husband appeals. This Court w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e trier of f a c t . W e w i l l consider only whether s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence supports t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions. Findings w i l l n o t be overturned unless t h e r e i s a c l e a r pre- ponderance of evidence a g a i n s t them, recognizing t h a t evi- dence may be weak o r c o n f l i c t i n g , y e t s t i l l support the findings. Phennicie v. Phennicie (1979), - M o n t . , 6 0 4 P.2d 787, 790, 36 St.Rep. 2378, 2381. The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s presumed c o r r e c t , and t h i s Court w i l l draw every l e g i t i m a t e i n £ erence t o support t h a t presumption. Marta v. Smith (1981), - Mont. , 622 P.2d 1011, 1015, 38 St.Rep. 28, 32; Madison Fork Ranch v. L & B Lodge, Etc. Mont. (1980) - , 615 P.2d 900, 905-906, 37 St.Rep. 1468, 1473. The D i s t r i c t Court awarded back c h i l d support i n t h e amount of $1,035.74, c a l c u l a t e d by determining t h e percentage i n c r e a s e s i n the husband's hourly wage r a t e . The husband claims e r r o r , arguing t h a t t h e provision was intended t o apply t o i n c r e a s e s i n h i s n e t earnings, which amount here t o approximately 6 percent i n 1979 over 1978, whereas t h e c o u r t t i e d t h e provision t o increases i n h i s wage r a t e , which amounted u l t i m a t e l y t o 34.5 percent. W e f i n d t h e r e i s no c l e a r preponderance of evidence a g a i n s t t h e c o u r t ' s findings. Only t h e husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i n t e r p r e t e d t h e agreement a s c a l l i n g f o r i n c r e a s e s i n c h i l d support i n the same per- centage a s t h a t by which h i s n e t s a l a r y increased, computed a t t h e end of t h e year. The c o u r t i s n o t bound by t h e p a r t i e s ' agreements a s t o c h i l d support where the welfare of t h e c h i l d r e n i s concerned. Winters v. Winters (1980), Mont. , 610 P.2d 1165, 1168, 37 St.Rep. 847, 850. The - - husband's approach would be t o determine a t the end of t h e year h i s n e t i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y over t h e previous year, and then t o increase h i s succeeding monthly support payments by t h e same Percentage. The D i s t r i c t Court has i n t e r p r e t e d t h e agreement i n l i g h t of t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e children; t h e requirement t h a t c h i l d support be increased a s t h e husband's wage r a t e rises w i l l b e t t e r e n a b l e t h e w i f e t o m e e t c u r r e n t expenses of r a i s i n g and maintaining t h e c h i l d r e n . The f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e w i f e ' s f i n a n c i a l p l i g h t s u p p o r t such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . W e d e c l i n e t o o v e r t u r n t h e District Court ' s judgment . I f t h e D i s t r i c t Court had a p p l i e d t h e 34.5 p e r c e n t i n - c r e a s e i n hourly wage t o f u t u r e c h i l d support payments, t h e r e s u l t would have been a t o t a l of $302.63 p e r month f o r both c h i l d r e n . The c o u r t , i n s t e a d , set f u t u r e support payments a t a t o t a l of $550 p e r month, which i s an i n c r e a s e of 1 4 4 p e r c e n t . I n t h e absence of evidence showing a wage i n c r e a s e of 1 4 4 per- c e n t , t h e determination by t h e District Court c o n s t i t u t e s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d i v o r c e decree. Because t h e husband d i d n o t consent i n w r i t i n g t o a m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court could modify t h a t o b l i g a t i o n only upon a showing of changed circumstances s o s u b s t a n t i a l and continuing a s t o make t h e o r i g i n a l c h i l d s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n unconscionable. S e c t i o n 40-4-208(2) ( b ) (i), M C A ; Firman v. Firman (1980), Mont. - , 610 P.2d 178, 181, 37 St.Rep. 888, 890. The r e c o r d h e r e does c o n t a i n evidence showing t h e need f o r i n c r e a s e d c h i l d s u p p o r t and t h e husband's i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y t o pay such support. There i s an evi-dentiary b a s i s t o support t h e determination t h a t i t would be unconscionable t o continue t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments p r e s e n t l y i n e f f e c t . Mont. G a l l v. G a l l (19801, - , 608 P.2d 496, 498, 37 St.Rep. - 639, 641. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e evidence shows t h a t t h e husband's hourly wage i n c r e a s e d approximately 34 p e r c e n t from ~ p r i l 1978 t o J u l y 1979, while h i s g r o s s e a r n i n g s f o r 1979 i n c r e a s e d 9 p e r c e n t over t h e 1978 g r o s s earnings; and i n a d d i t i o n t o such g r o s s e a r n i n g s , he r e c e i v e d nontaxable, p e r diem " s u b s i s t e n c e " payments when he worked o u t of Missoula which t o t a l e d $4,654 i n 1979, making t o t a l compensation f o r 1979 equal t o $30,677. The evidence shows t h a t t h e w i f e ' s income i n 1979, i n c l u d i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t payments, was $8,356, which was $494 less than her expenses; and, t h a t a d d i t i o n a l money i s necessary t o adequately provide f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . This i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence o f sub- s t a n t i a l and continuing circumstances which render t h e p r i o r d e c r e e unconscionable and j u s t i f i e s modification. I n re Marriage of B l i s s (1980), Mont. , 609 P.2d 1209, 1212, 37 St.Rep. 708, 710-711. The husband c o n t e s t s t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e w i f e i n t h e amount of $1,657.16. H e argues t h a t t h e w i f e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e judgment, s o should n o t have been awarded f e e s . W e a f f i r m t h e judgment. Here, both c o n t r a c t u a l and s t a t u t o r y b a s e s a r e p r e s e n t f o r awarding a t t o r n e y fees. S e c t i o n 40-4-110 , MCA. The p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n agreement provides, " [ s ] hould any a c t i o n be commenced t o e n f o r c e , modify o r i n t e r p r e t any p r o v i s i o n contained h e r e i n , t h e c o u r t , a s a c o s t of s u i t , s h a l l award a reasonable a t t o r n e y ' s f e e t o t h e s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y . " This a c t i o n f i t s s q u a r e l y w i t h i n those t e r m s . A hearing was held on March 31, 1980, g i v i n g t h e husband t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b j e c t t o t h e claimed f e e s . The District C o u r t ' s o r d e r of June 16, 1980, awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s based upon t h e evidence presented. W e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e award. The w i f e r e q u e s t s a t t o r n e y f e e s be awarded upon t h i s appeal. H e r need f o r t h e award i s shown i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a s t o h e r p r e s e n t f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n . W e a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court and remand f o r f i n d i n g s a s t o reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s upon appeal, pursuant t o t h e sep- a r a t i o n agreement and s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA. W e concur: .$+%- jfidt, J u s t i c e s