Title: CICINIA v CICINIA

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13393 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 ELEANOR H . CICINIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, GAETANO T. CICINIA, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Honorable Robert Keller, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Moore and Lyrnpus, Kalispell, Montana James D. Moore argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Warden, Walterskirchen & Christiansen, Kalispell, Montana Gary R. Christiansen argued, Kalispell, Montana Filed: Submitted: March 14, 1977 Decided : JUR 2 e 4977 M r . Jusrice Gene 3 . Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. The d i s t r i c t court, Flathead County, s i t t i n g without a jury, Hon. Robert S. Keller, D i s t r i c t Judge presiding, granted M r k T i FF L i n an action sac e. summary judgment t o U - g alimony provisions of a foreign divorce decree. Eleanor Cicinia obtained a default divorce decree on grounds of desertion, incorporating a voluntary property s e t t l e - ment agreement p a r t of which gave her $75 per week, payable each Monday f o r the balance of her l i f e , unless she remarried. This amount was t o include child support and minor medical care u n t i l the children reached majority. The p a r t i e s were married i n 1940 and the decree n i s i was dated February 25, 1965, i n the s t a t e of N e w Jersey. Defendant remarried and adopted the children of h i s present wife and moved t o Kalispell, Montana i n 1973. Defendant operates a business e n t i t l e d "Northwest Sports, Inc.". Defendant defaulted i n h i s alimony payments. O n June 27, 1974, p l a i n t i f f brought an action i n N e w Jersey t o determine arrearage, increase alimony, and determine attorney fees. De- fendant f i l e d two a f f i d a v i t s i n h i s behalf i n addition t o a deposition. He was represented a t the hearing by a N e w Jersey law firm but did not appear i n person. The New Jersey court on April 25, 1975 granted judgment i n the sum of $3,995. P l a i n t i f f ' s prayer f o r additional alimony was denied. O n June 23, 1975, the N e w Jersey court awarded attorney fees i n the amount of $2,000 and $196.80 i n costs. The N e w Jersey judgment was not appealed i n N e w Jersey. The present action was f i l e d i n Montana t o enforce t h e N e w Jersey judgment on September 15, 1975. Defendant contends the judgment cannot be enforced i n Montana a s it contravenes the constitutional and statutory r i g h t s of defendant and i s against public policy of the s t a t e of Montana. Defendant a l s o p e t i t i o n s the Montana court t o modify the N e w Jersey decree prospectively and retroactively. I n t h i s regard, defendant speaks t o the modification of the "decree n i s i " of February 25, 1965, yet the record indicated t h i s decree was made f i n a l May 26, 1965. Hon. Robert S. Keller, d i s t r i c t judge, entered summary judg- ment May 5, 1976, under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., a f t e r b r i e f s were submitted and o r a l argument heard, f o r p l a i n t i f f on the N e w Jersey judgment with the memo: "The Defendant r a i s e s no factual issues. The answer t o t h e complaint, consists of conclusions, which r a i s e issues of law, and a r e r e s adjudicata. "The 'counter-petition' t o the complaint i s something t h i s Court does not understand." Defendant appeals from t h e summary judgment of the d i s t r i c t court and presents these issues t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. Can summary judgment be entered on a foreign decree which enforcement of contravenes public policy o r laws of Montana? 2. Does f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t compel enforcement of a foreign decree t h a t lacks f i n a l i t y i n N e w Jersey? 4. Can a decree of divorce issued i n another s t a t e be modified i n Montana? Defendant appeared by counsel and a f f i d a v i t and deposition i n defense of h i s position a t the court hearing i n N e w Jersey, which denied him r e l i e f on April 25, 1975. He did not challenge the f i n a l i t y of t h a t c o u r t ' s judgment on which the hearing was brought o r challenge the c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n , nor did he appeal from t h a t court' s judgment. W e note here t h a t a t a l l times pertinent hereto, defendant has been vigorously represented by counsel. The N e w Jersey judgments were f i n a l judgments rendered by a court which had proper jurisdiction only a f t e r an adversary proceeding. The Montana action merely seeks a judgment based upon the f i n a l judgments of the N e w Jersey court. The doctrines of r e s judicata and c o l l a t e r a l estoppel bar the r e l i t i g a t i o n of the matters determined by the N e w Jersey court. The doctrine of f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t allows the enforcement of the judgment. A r t . I V , Section '1, United States Constitution; Section 93- 1001-20, R.C.M. 1947; 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments $ 5 1226,1227,1230. The t r i a l court correctly s t a t e d t h a t the pleadings of defendant r a i s e no f a c t issues but ultimate issues of law which a r e r e s adjudicata. r - 2 Judgment of the t r i a l court i s affirmed. ,, /.' " J u s t i c e 4 W_e_ Concur : r ' 1 ,.._4- ' . * Chief J u s t i c e A