Title: BAKER v BAKER

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 81-393 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1982 I N R E THE MARRIAGE O F EVELYN I. BAKER, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs- D E W E Y F. BAKER, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Missoula, The Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Recht and Greef , Hamilton, Montana For Respondent : Terry Wallace, Missoula, blontana Submitted on B r i e f s : March 11, 1982 Decided: June 10, 1982 F i l e d : J ! J # 1 0 1982 Mr. ~ u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s is a n a p p e a l from t h e judgment o f t h e i l i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County o f M i s s o u l a , a r i s i n g o u t o f a m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n . A t t h e t i m e o f t h e i r d i v o r c e , Evelyn and Dewey Baker e n t e r e d i n t o a p r o p e r t y a g r e e m e n t d a t e d J u n e 27, 1988. T h i s a g r e e m e n t was approved by t h e c o u r t and e n t e r e d i n t o t h e d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n on t h a t same d a t e . Under t h e t e r m s o f t h e p r o p e r t y a g r e e m e n t , among o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s , t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t a l l f a m i l y o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s i n c u r r e d by them p r i o r t o August 7 , 1979, were t o b e t h e s o l e and s e p a r a t e o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t husband. O b l i g a t i o n s i n c u r r e d s i n c e t h a t d a t e by t h e p a r t i e s i n d i v i d u a l l y were t o b e t h e s e p a r a t e o b l i g a t i o n s of t h e p a r t y who i n c u r r e d t h e o b l i g a t i o n s . The p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e w i f e would h a v e f u l l c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f t h e f i v e minor c h i l d r e n , t h a t t h e husband was t o have 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 and c e r t a i n p e r i o d s of t i m e d u r i n g t h e summer and h o l i d a y s ; i n a d d i t i o n , t h e a p p e l l a n t husband was t o make a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h t h e w i f e p r i o r t o t h e s e v i s i t a t i o n s . The husband was t o pay a l l m e d i c a l and d e n t a l b i l l s . The husband was t o convey t o t h e w i f e an a p a r t m e n t complex owned by t h e p a r t i e s i n M i s s o u l a , Montana, t h e income from which was t o b e used by h e r a s and f o r t h e o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e husband t o pay s u p p o r t , m a i n t e n a n c e and c a r e and e d u c a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d r e n . The a p p e l l a n t h u s b a n d f u r t h e r a g r e e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e c o n v e y a n c e o f t h e a p a r t m e n t t o p r o v i d e an income t o t h e w i f e o f a t l e a s t $1,000 p e r month. T h i s was s e t up s o i n t h e e v e n t t h e g r o s s r e n t s r e c e i v e d from s u c h a p a r t m e n t s d i d n o t exceed $1,BB0 f o r any o n e month, t h e r e s p o n d e n t w i f e would n o t i f y t h e husband o f s u c h d e f i c i t and he was t o make up t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n a c a s h payment w i t h i n f i f t e e n d a y s . P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o p e r t y a g r e e m e n t t h e a p p e l l a n t hus- band a g r e e d t o d e p o s i t i n t h e Farmers S t a t e Bank i n V i c t o r , Montana, t h e sum o f $1,000 and t o m a i n t a i n t h a t a c c o u n t i n t h e name o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t w i f e , and t o f u r t h e r m a i n t a i n a b a l a n c e i n t h e a c c o u n t o f $1,000. With r e g a r d t o t h i s agreement it was u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o u l d draw upon t h i s a c c o u n t a t a n y t i m e t h e g r o s s r e n t s r e c e i v e d from t h e a p a r t m e n t s were less t h a n $1,000 f o r any o n e g i v e n month. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e w i f e drew on t h e a c c o u n t , t h e husband had t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o r e t u r n t h e a c c o u n t t o its $1,008 b a l a n c e w i t h i n t h e f i f t e e n - d a y p e r i o d . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t a t any t i m e t h e r e s p o n d e n t w i f e drew upon t h e a c c o u n t , when t h e g r o s s r e n t s r e c e i v e d from t h e a p a r t m e n t s were e q u a l t o o r e x c e e d e d $1,000, o r drew upon t h e a c c o u n t f o r t h e r e a s o n o t h e r t h a n making up f o r t h e r e d u c t i o n i n t h e g r o s s r e n t s r e c e i v e d from t h e a p a r t m e n t s , f o r a n y g i v e n month, t h e a c c o u n t i n t h e Farmers S t a t e Bank would be c l o s e d and a l l p r o c e e d s t h e r e i n r e t u r n e d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t husband. The i n k was h a r d l y d r y on t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s s i g n a t u r e t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n a g r e e m e n t b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s were o n c e a g a i n back i n c o u r t . On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e r e s p o n d e n t w i f e p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e a p p e l l a n t husband from e x e r c i s i n g h i s v i s i t a - t i o n r i g h t s and p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g on a r r e a r a g e s a n d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s a n d n u m e r o u s o t h e r problems s h e was having a s a r e s u l t of having custody of t h e c h i l d r e n . Hearings were held on t h e w i f e ' s motion t o e n f o r c e t h e d e c r e e on May 1 5 , 1981 and May 22, 1981, i n t h e R a v a l l i County Courthouse. Following t h e s e h e a r i n g s t h e c o u r t , on June 18, 1981, e n t e r e d an o r d e r based upon t h e evidence of t h e h e a r i n g s . Within l e s s than two weeks, t h e a p p e l l a n t husband f i l e d motions f o r a new t r i a l and f o r a l t e r a t i o n o r amendment of t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, both pursuant t o Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P. The husband f u r t h e r moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e o r d e r because t h e r e were no f i n d i n g s of f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s of law, t o s t a y t h e e x e c u t i o n and enforcement of t h e o r d e r , and t o modify t h e s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s of t h e o r i g i n a l o r d e r . I t would appear t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t husband, r e a l i z i n g t h a t t h e motions f o r a new t r i a l and f o r amendments were n o t t i m e l y , on J u l y 22, 1981, f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal. There- a f t e r , on November 4, 1981, t h e a p p e l l a n t husband moved f o r a s t a y of e x e c u t i o n . That motion was denied a f t e r a b r i e f h e a r i n g , and t h e a p p e l l a n t husband then moved t h e c o u r t t o r e e s t a b l i s h v i s i t a t i o n with h i s c h i l d r e n . That motion was heard on December 21, 1981, and a t r a n s c r i p t of t h a t h e a r i n g was included on t h i s a p p e a l . O n August 13, 1981, t h e c o u r t d i d e n t e r f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law pursuant t o t h e r e q u e s t of t h e husband i n h i s June 29, 1981, motion. Five i s s u e s a r e presented f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n : 1. Whether t h e o r d e r d a t e d June 18, 1981, should be vacated and reversed f o r f a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. 2. Whether t h e change of v i s i t a t i o n ordered by t h e supplemental d e c r e e d a t e d May 15, 1981, was supported by f i n d i n g s of f a c t o r by evidence. 3 . Whether t h e o r d e r of t h e c o u r t e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a r r e a r a g e s i n t h e amount of $2,849 is supported by t h e evidence. 4. Whether t h e o r d e r of t h e c o u r t compelling t h e a p p e l l a n t t o pay management f e e s is supported by t h e law o r t h e f a c t s . 5. Whether t h e o r d e r compelling a r e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of escrow account is an impermissible m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e binding agreement of t h e p a r t i e s . Here, t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage was e n t e r e d on J u l y 14, 1988. By motion d a t e d February 1 3 , 1981, t h e wife sought t o e n f o r c e t h e d e c r e e a s t o t h e payment of c h i l d s u p p o r t and r e a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s , and a l s o sought t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s of t h e husband be changed. W e a r e n o t involved with an appeal from a judgment following t r i a l . The l a s t s e n t e n c e of Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., d i s p o s e s of t h e i s s u e , s t a t i n g : " F i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law a r e unnecessary on d e c i s i o n s of motions under Rules 12 o r 56 o r any o t h e r motion except a s provided i n Rule 41(b) .I' Rule 4 1 ( b ) p e r t a i n s t o i n v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l of a c t i o n s and is n o t a p p l i c a b l e here. A s a r e s u l t , we conclude t h a t under Rule 5 2 ( a ) f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law were n o t r e q u i r e d under t h e r u l e s . I s s u e two i n v o l v e s t h e change of v i s i t a t i o n by t h e a p p e l l a n t husband. A s i n so many c a s e s where t h e word "rea- sonable" v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s a r e put i n t o t h e d e c r e e , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e word " r e a s o n a b l e " is l e f t t o two unreasonable p a r t i e s . That is t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e , and t h e D i s t r i c t Court found it n e c e s s a r y t o modify t h e d e c r e e t o s e t f o r t h a scheduled v i s i t a t i o n t h a t both p a r t i e s could l i v e by. The evidence submitted a t t h e h e a r i n g s c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e husband abused h i s p r i v i l e g e s under t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s set f o r t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e . The t r i a l c o u r t merely c l a r i f i e d t h o s e r i g h t s by p e r m i t t i n g both p a r t i e s t o have a l t e r n a t i v e weekend v i s i t a t i o n s and s e t t i n g a s p e c i f i c forty-day summer v i s i t a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t provided f o r t h e manner i n which t h e a p p e l l a n t husband was t o a r r a n g e v i s i t a t i o n s . These r e s t r i c t i o n s and c l a r i f i c a t i o n s were warranted by t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t , and t h e r e is c l e a r l y no abuse of i t s d i s c r e t i o n . The t h i r d i s s u e is d i r e c t e d t o a r r e a r a g e s which t h e a p p e l l a n t husband a r g u e s a r e not supported by t h e evidence. W e f i n d t h i s a f r i v o l o u s i s s u e because t h e a p p e l l a n t a d m i t s t h a t t h e $2,369.27 a r r i v e d a t by t h e D i s t r i c t Court was agreed upon a t t h e h e a r i n g s a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence was placed b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . Appellant t a k e s i s s u e with t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o g i v e him c r e d i t of $150 f o r a s t o v e given t o t h e wife a t t h e time of d i s s o l u t i o n . T h i s t y p e of p e t t i n e s s d e s e r v e s l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n on a p p e a l . The c o u r t had s u f f i c i e n t evidence b e f o r e i t a s t o t h e amount due on June 15, 1981, and t h e amount i n a r r e a r a g e . There is ample evidence f o r t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , and we f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . The next i s s u e is d i r e c t e d a t t h e requirement t h a t a p p e l l a n t pay f o r p r o p e r t y management f e e s f o r t h e apartment complex deeded t o t h e respondent. The four-plex apartment conlplex involved h e r e is w i t h i n s e v e r a l blocks of t h e Uni- v e r s i t y of Montana and is d e s c r i b e d a s being among t h e most r e n t a b l e type of p r o p e r t y i n Missoula. Following t h e t a k i n g over of t h e complex by t h e wife, t h e r e was testimony t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e were v a c a n c i e s i n t h e apartments. There- f o r e , t h e income from t h e p r o p e r t y d i d n o t come up t o expec- t a t i o n s , and t h e a r r e a r a g e complained of by t h e respondent wife occurred. The husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h i s was v e r y r e n t a b l e p r o p e r t y and t h e r e should have been people i n t h e a p a r t m e n t s throughout t h e time involved. I n h i s view t h e v a c a n c i e s occurred because of rnisrnanagement by respondent. A s one of h i s w i t n e s s e s , a p p e l l a n t had a r e a l e s t a t e agent f a m i l i a r with t h e r e n t a l s i n Missoula t e s t i f y . H i s testimony was t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t f o r a r a t h e r minor f e e , approximately 5%, he could manage t h e p r o p e r t y and s u c c e s s f u l l y keep it f u l l . A s a r e s u l t of t h i s testimony, t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y could e a r n more under p r o f e s s i o n a l management and, because of t h e evidence produced by t h e husband t h a t t h i s is what he wanted, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be managed by a competent r e a l e s t a t e person i n Missoula and t h a t t h e husband pay f o r same. W e f i n d no m e r i t t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s i n t h i s m a t t e r . The n e x t i s s u e is d i r e c t e d a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e - e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e escrow account s e t up i n t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. Appellant a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t had no a u t h o r i t y t o modify t h e terms of t h e binding s e p a r a t i o n agreement u n l e s s it found t h a t t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n was being a f f e c t e d o r t h a t a change of c i r c u m s t a n c e s had occurred so s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g a s t o make t h e t e r m s u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . The c h i l d c u s t o d y and p r o p e r t y agreement p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e e s c r o w c o u l d be c l o s e d by t h e husband i f t h e w i f e "draws on s a i d a c c o u n t f o r a r e a s o n o t h e r t h a n making up f o r s u c h r e d u c t i o n i n g r o s s r e n t s r e c e i v e d from t h e a p a r t m e n t s , f o r a n y g i v e n month . . . " The r e s p o n d e n t w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u e t o v a c a n c i e s and o t h e r economic f a c t o r s , t h e r e n t a l income f e l l s h o r t o f t h a t a n t i c i p a t e d . The p r o p e r t y a g r e e m e n t h e r e was w r i t t e n by a p p e l l a n t and is s i l e n t on what t h e w i f e was t o do i f t h e husband owed h e r c h i l d s u p p o r t when t h e e s c r o w a c c o u n t was e s t a b l i s h e d . I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e e s c r o w a c c o u n t was n o t e s t a b l i s h e d i m r i ~ e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n was g r a n t e d b u t s e v e r a l months l a t e r b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s were s i g n i n g m u t u a l d e e d s and t r a n s f e r r i n g p r o p e r t y . However, t h e n e c e s s i t y t o c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n a s p r o v i d e d by t h e d e c r e e was a c o n t i n u i n g o b l i g a t i o n d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i n which t h e v a r i o u s d e e d s were b e i n g p a s s e d back and f o r t h by t h e husband and w i f e and t h e i r a t t o r n e y s . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we f i n d no b r e a c h by r e s p o n d e n t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t , b y w i t h d r a w i n g money and u s i n g it f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e minor c h i l d r e n . There- f o r e , t h e c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e its d i s c r e t i o n i n d i r e c t i n g t h e husband t o r e e s t a b l i s h t h e a c c o u n t and comply w i t h t h e terms o f t h e a g r e e m e n t . F i n d i n g no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n a n y o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a c t i o n s h e r e i n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t is a f f i r m e d . Respon- d e n t is awarded c o s t s on a p p e a l . W e concur :