Title: FRANCKE v FRANCKE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No, 12196 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F WE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 - - - W A L T E R FRANCKE , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, S A N D R A JEAN FRANCKE, Defendant and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth .Tudicial. D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack D . Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Sandall, Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana, Charles F, Moses and K, D. T o l l i v e r argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent : Longan and Holmstrom, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Robert W, Holmstrom argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Submitted : October 27, 1972 Decided : "?-3 JAN^ 197, F i l e d : ,fr\T1 5 . * , i v i r . Justice (;tine B. 3 a i y delivered t h e Opinion o f the Court. This i s an appeal from the property settlement award i n a divorce judgment entered September 20, 1971, i n favor of each p a r t y a g a i n s t t h e other i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S t i l l w a t e r County, following t r i a l t o t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g without a jury. The a c t i o n was commenced by p l a i n t i f f D r . Walter Francke and defendant Xrs. Sandra Jean Francke counterclaimed f o r divorce. The Franckes have t h r e e children, a son now I1 years old, a son now 10 years old, and a daughter now 9 years old. The decree, with the w i f e ' s consent, granted custody of t h e o l d e s t child t o t h e husband and custody of the two younger c h i l d r e n to the wife, The wife was granted a monthly alimony award of $1,000 u n t i l death o r remarriage, and $150 per month support f o r each of the two children i n h e r custody. Provision was rnade f o r t h e husband t o pay a l l medical and dental expenses of aL1 three children. I n addition, t h e husband was ordered t o designate t h e wife irrevocable beneficiary of $50,000 i n l i f e i n s u r m c e t o p r o t e c t t h e alimony. Each party admits t o t h i s Court t h a t t h e alimony award has been terminated by remarriage,. The property settlement ordered by t h e court d i r e c t e d -:hts iB~fiEe t o s e t over t:o the husband h e r i n t e r e s t i n the j o i n t l y '7eid property and d i r e c t e d the husband t o pay the wife t h e cash ;urn of $60,000; $30,000 t o be due i n 1971 and $10,000 each year tor three successive years. The decree f u r t h e r ordered t h e husband t o s e t over h i s i n t e r e s t i n some household f u r n i t u r e and h i s i n t e r e s t i n an automobile used by the wife. It appears t h a t ;:he bulk of the husband's e s t a t e was acquired a f t e r t h e marriage, ~riirough h i s f i n a n c i a l contribution and was held almost e n t i r e l y Irs s o l e ownership by him. Motion f o r a new t r i a l was made on t h e b a s i s t h a t the judgment governing the property settlement was ~ l o c supported by the evidence, The motion was denied and t h i s appeal was taken. P l a i n t i f f presents 5 u t one issue on a p p e a l , whe~hes t h e svidence j u s t i f i e s the award t o defendant wife of $60,000 i n l i e u of property, when the court a l s o awarded the wife alimony. The judgment of divorce, support, alimony, custody and other property awards a r e not challenged on appeal, From t h e record, i t appears t h a t D r . Francke began h i s n~edical practice i n Billings i n 1955. In 1959, he married M r s . Francke a t Charleston, West Virginia. A t t h a t time he had zstablished a successful practice. A t the time of the marriage Dr. Francke was approximately 40 years old; Mrs. Francke was 22 years old. The evidence i s i n c o n f l i c t on matters of f i n a n c i a l worth, however, the t r i a l court found i n i t s finding of f a c t No, 8 t h a t p l a i n t i f f averaged i n excess of $81,000 per year taxable income during the past four years; t h a t during the course 3f the marriage p l a i n t i f f acquired property valued i n excess of $250,000; t h a t the p a r t i e s lived i n a luxurious home, traveled, and did a l l things compatible with t h e i r financial position. The court found t h a t defendant, three years p r i o r t o her mdrriage, received the Miss Congeniality award a t the Miss ~ m e r i c a Pageant i n 1956, resulting i n appearances on national television a s an a c t r e s s ; t h a t she had p a r t i a l l y completed her s ~ u d i e s i n clothing design and was employed by a national company i n a public r e l a t i o n s capacity, receiving a very substantial in- come; t h a t a s a r e s u l t of the marriage she has not engaged i n these occupations and now i s unable t o resume her career. The court further found t h a t of the property accumulated b y p l a i n t i f f during the course of the marriage only two parcels sf land were i n j o i n t tenancy and the balance i n p l a i n t i f f ' s name alone; t h a t during the course of the marriage defendant aided p i a i n t i f f i n furthering h i s professional career by participation i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , medical a u x i l i a r i e s and i n preparation of medical exhibits f o r radiological conventions. 7 he d i s t r i c t court apparently considered more in t h i s case than mere financial contributions. The law has never confined ' j o i n t e f f o r t s ' t o such a narrow meaninn. The marital partnership - - - - - i s more than a businzss r e l a t i o n . The pecuniary and proprietary f r u i t s of the marriage a r e frequently acquired by j oi-nt e f f o r t , even though actual financial outlay may be more the contri- bution of one spouse than the other. his holding does not make Montana a community property s t a t e . There i s no required percentage of allocation t o be applied i n a l l cases. Each case must be looked a t - by the t r i a l court indi- vidually with an eye t o i t s unique circumstances. Under the circumstances here, we a r e not compelled t o s t a t e t h a t equal division of the property i s an inequitable r e s u l t . " (Emphasis supplied). P l a i n t i f f ' s contentions a r e not v a l i d i n l i g h t of the pronouncements i n Cook. Each case must be viewed individually and each i s as d i f f e r e n t a s a r e the persons and t h e i r l i v e s that a r e involved. Mrs. ~ u n n e w e l l ' s s i t u a t i o n a s a ranch wife would not be the same a s M r s . ~ r a n c k e ' s a s the wife of a radiologist, whose income i s derived from r e f e r r a l s from physicians. Therefore her s o c i a l participation, entertainment, and work i n the medical association a u x i l i a r i e s would be more s i g n i f i c a n t than i f she were married t o a general p r a c t i t i o n e r , or of very l i t t l e significance i f she were a ranch wife. I n ocher words, the generalizations argued by p l a i n t i f f cannot con- ,- ' . L O ~ .- . Conceding a l l p a r t i e s give up something when they decide LO marry, the court would have t o look t o the individual case. Some wives can s t e p back i n t o t h e i r p r i o r jobs o r careers and some cannot. It would seem the t r i a l court a t the time of the divorce looks a t t h i s aspect of the p a r t i e s ' l i v e s a s a con- t r i b u t i n g factor t o the determination i n terms of a b i l i t y t o proceed t o reenter gainful employment. W e do not f e e l the argument a s t o the adequacy of the child suppurt award or i t s inclusion i n the discussion i s relevant. Therefore, we w i l l not comment on it. After a close examination of a l l of the circumstances i n t h e record, we f e e l the award appealed from i s supported by the record and the applicable law, The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. '~ssociate Justice t / 7 Chief Justice