Title: WHITE v WHITE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-256 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 MILDRED WHITE, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- PNNUEL WHITE, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Kline & Niklas, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: September 17, 1981 Decided : ~ 2 5 m Filed: Nov 2 5 19#1 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 . The sole q u e s t i o n i n t h i s appeal is whether t h e e a r n i n g s o f a judgment d e b t o r f o r h i s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s are exempt from e x e c u t i o n on a judgment f o r unpaid alimony. The District Court h e l d such e a r n i n g s exempt. W e a f f i r m . On February 22, 1980, a p p e l l a n t Mildred White o b t a i n e d a judgment f o r d e l i n q u e n t alimony payments a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t Manuel White i n t h e S u p e r i o r Court of Spokane, Washington. T h i s judgment was sued upon i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court of L e w i s and C l a r k County, Montana i n May, 1980, and reduced to judgment i n t h e sum o f $39,502.65 i n t h e Montana Court i n December, 1980. Following e n t r y of judgment, r e s p o n d e n t Manuel White f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t of exemption p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 25-13-614, MCA, c l a i m i n g t h a t h i s e a r n i n g s f o r h i s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s were n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e use of h i s f a m i l y supported i n whole or i n p a r t b y h i s l a b o r and t h e r e f o r e were exempt from e x e c u t i o n . Attached t o t h e af f i d a v i t of exemption was a s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g h i s n e t monthly income was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,600 and a n i t e m i z a t i o n of h i s monthly expenses n e c e s s a r y to s u p p o r t h i s f a m i l y i n t h e total amount of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,975 f o r a n e t monthly d e f i c i t of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $375. No i s s u e was r a i s e d i n t h e District Court c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of any of t h e items claimed as n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s family. I n J a n u a r y , 1981, a p p e l l a n t Mildred White submitted a w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n f o r i s s u a n c e by t h e c l e r k of c o u r t of Lewis and C l a r k County. She f i l e d a s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f claiming t h a t Montana's exemption s t a t u t e h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n to an e x e c u t i o n based upon a judgment f o r d e l i n q u e n t alimony payments and t h e r e - f o r e a p p e l l a n t ' s claim of exemption of h i s e a r n i n g s w a s i n v a l i d . On May 1 8 , 1981, t h e District Court o r d e r e d t h e c l e r k of c o u r t to deny a p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n " t h e r e b e i n g no l e g a l cause shown . . . why t h e e a r n i n g s of t h e defen- d a n t [ a p p e l l a n t h e r e ] f o r h i s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s should n o t be exempt under s a i d s t a t u t e . " (Bracketed i d e n t i f i c a t i o n added.) A p p e l l a n t Mildred White has appealed from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r denying t h e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n . Montana's exemption s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " E a r n i n g s o f judgment d e b t o r . (1) The e a r n i n g s o f t h e judgment d e b t o r f o r h i s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d a t any t i m e w i t h i n 45 d a y s n e x t pre- c e d i n g t h e l e v y of e x e c u t i o n or a t t a c h m e n t , when it a p p e a r s by t h e debtor's a f f i d a v i t or o t h e r w i s e t h a t such e a r n i n g s are n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e use of h i s f a m i l y supported i n whole or i n p a r t by h i s l a b o r , a r e exempt . . . " ( 2 ) The words ' h i s f a m i l y ' , as used i n t h i s s e c t i o n , a r e to be c o n s t r u e d w i t h t h e words head of f a m i l y ' , as used i n 70-32-102". S e c t i o n 25-13-614, MCA. "Head of family" is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 70-32-102, MCA, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g language: "Head o f f a m i l y d e f i n e d . The p h r a s e 'head of a -- f a m i l y 1 as used i n t h i s c h a p t e r i n c l u d e s w i t h i n its meaning: " ( 1 ) t h e husband and wife a c t i n g t o g e t h e r or e i t h e r one of them i f t h e y d o n o t j o i n i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s a c t i o n . I n any g i v e n t r a n s a c - t i o n which r e q u i r e s a c t i o n by t h e head of a f a m i l y , t h e spouse who u n d e r t a k e s t h e t r a n s a c - t i o n s h a l l be deemed head of t h e f a m i l y i n r e g a r d to t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s a c t i o n . " ( 3 ) e v e r y person who h a s r e s i d i n g on t h e premi- ses w i t h him or h e r and under h i s or h e r care and maintenance e i t h e r : " ( a ) h i s o r h e r minor c h i l d or t h e minor c h i l d o f h i s o r h e r wife or husband o r former wife or husband . . ." A p p e l l a n t Mildred White c o n t e n d s t h a t Montana' s exemption s t a t u t e h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n to a c l a i m f o r d e l i n q u e n t alimony. She a r g u e s t h a t t h e basis of alimony is t h e n a t u r a l o b l i g a t i o n of a husband to s u p p o r t h i s w i f e ; t h a t it is n o t a d e b t w i t h i n t h e meaning of exemption s t a t u t e s ; t h a t it d o e s n o t create a d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p between husband and w i f e ; and t h e r e f o r e it is beyond t h e purpose and scope of exemption s t a t u t e s whose purpose is t o s a v e t h e d e b t o r a means of s u p p o r t i n g h i s family. She p o i n t s o u t t h a t o t h e r c o u r t s have g e n e r a l l y so h e l d , c i t i n g Anno: Enforcement of claim f o r alimony etc. a g a i n s t exemptions, 54 ALR2d 1422; Bruton v. T e a r l e ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 7 Cal.2d 48, 59 P.2d 953; Yager v. Yager (1936) 7 Cal.2d 213, 60 P.2d 422; Rankins v. Rankins ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 52 Cal.2d 231, 126 P.2d 125; Ex p a r t e Smallbone (19401, 16 Cal.2d 532, 106 P.2d 873; Henry v. Henry ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 1 8 2 Cal.App.2d 707, 6 C a l . R p t r . 418; ~ i c k e l v. Bickel She goes on t o argue t h a t t h e monthly expenses l i s t e d b y r e s p o n d e n t as n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s f a m i l y d e s e r v e s c r u t i n y to d e t e r m i n e t h e i r n e c e s s i t y w i t h i n t h e meaning of Montana's exemption s t a t u t e . F i n a l l y , she p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e r e s u l t of upholding r e s p o n d e n t ' s claim of exemption is t o f a v o r second and t h i r d wives and c h i l d r e n a t t h e expense of h e r p r i o r claim--an i n d e f e n s i b l e social p o l i c y . The i s s u e posed i n t h i s case h a s n o t been a d j u d i c a t e d i n Montana. Both a p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t concede t h i s . A p p e l l a n t s e e k s to persuade us to hold i n h e r f a v o r by r u l i n g s of c o u r t s of sister states e i t h e r t h a t t h e i r exemp- t i o n s t a t u t e s do n o t e x p r e s s l y encompass claims or judgments f o r d e l i n q u e n t alimony o r by j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e i r exemption s t a t u t e s to t h a t e f f e c t . W e remain unpersuaded . W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t alimony claims rest on a d i f f e r e n t b a s i s than o r d i n a r y d e b t s . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s pointed o u t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n t h i s language: "Permanent alimony is regarded r a t h e r as a por- t i o n of t h e husband I s estate to which t h e wife is e q u i t a b l y e n t i t l e d , t h a n s t r i c t l y a d e b t ; alimony from t i m e t o t i m e may be regarded as a p o r t i o n of h i s c u r r e n t income or e a r n i n g s . " Audubon v. S h u f e l d t ( 1 9 0 1 ) , 1 8 1 U.S. 575, 578, 2 1 S e c t . 7 3 5 , 45 L.Ed 1009. B e t h a t as it may, a claim f o r d e l i n q u e n t alimony when reduced t o judgment becomes merged i n t h e judgment and loses its u n d e r l y i n g c h a r a c t e r . The judgment creates a d e b t owed by t h e former husband to t h e ex-wife. The judgment creates a d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p between them t h e same as any o t h e r money judgment between a p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t . I n c o n s t r u i n g Montanat s exemption s t a t u t e , t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e is t o be pursued i f p o s s i b l e . S e c t i o n 1-2-102, MCA. The i n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must f i r s t be determined from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words u s e d , and i f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e can be so d e t e r m i n e d , t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and a p p l y any o t h e r means of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Haker v. Southwestern Railway Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 364, 578 P.2d 724; Montana Ass'n of U n d e r w r i t e r s v. S t a t e of Montana ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 211, 563 P.2d 577. Where t h e language of a s t a t u t e is p l a i n , unambiguous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n t h e r e is nothing l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t to c o n s t r u e . Doull v. Wohlschlager ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 354, 377 P.2d758; N a t ' l Elec. C o n t r a c t o r s Ass'n v. S t a t e Bd. o f Education ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 137 Mont. 382, 352 P.2d 258; Vaughn & Ragsdale Co. v. S t . Bd. of E q u a l i z a t i o n (1939) , 109 Mont. 52, 96 P.2d 420. The f u n c t i o n of t h e Court i n c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e is s i m p l y to a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what is i n terms or i n s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n , n o t to i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d or o m i t what h a s been i n s e r t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA. I n s h o r t , it is s i m p l y t h e d u t y of t h e Supreme Court to c o n s t r u e t h e l a w a s it f i n d s it. Dunphy v. Anaconda Co. ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 76, 438 P.2d 660 and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Applying t h e f o r e g o i n g r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y cons t r u c - t i o n , we hold t h a t Montana's exemption s t a t u t e does n o t d i f - f e r e n t i a t e between d i f f e r e n t k i n d s or t y p e s of judgments. The p l a i n language of t h e s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s an exemption of e a r n i n g s a g a i n s t t h e l e v y of any e x e c u t i o n r e g a r d l e s s of t h e n a t u r e of t h e u n d e r l y i n g claim. T h i s Court is n o t empowered t o i n s e r t an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e exemption s t a t u t e c o n s i s t i n g o f judgments f o r d e l i n q u e n t alimony payments. W e cannot i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d from t h e s t a t u t e . W e must c o n s t r u e t h e s t a t u t e as we f i n d it. I f t h e r e s u l t c o n t r a - v e n e s e n l i g h t e n e d p u b l i c p o l i c y , it is f o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and n o t t h e c o u r t s t o amend t h e s t a t u t e . It is n o t t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s to improve l e g i s l a t i v e a c t s by j u d i c i a l amendment. W e do n o t r e a c h t h e claim of a p p e l l a n t t h a t some of t h e i n d i v i d u a l expense items i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s claim of exemp- t i o n may n o t be n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s family. T h i s i s s u e w a s n o t r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t i n t h e District C o u r t . T h i s Court w i l l n o t d e c i d e i s s u e s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . Northern p l a i n s v. Board of N a t u r a l Resources ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 500, 594 P.2d 297; Kearns v. McIntyre Const. Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) r 1 7 3 Mont. 239, 567 P.2d 433. Af f irmed . Chief ~ u s t i c e J u s t i c e s