Title: ROGERS v ROGERS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13148 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 ANNE ROGERS, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - JULIAN ROGERS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J. Nelson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Smith, Emmons, B a i l l i e and Walsh, Great F a l l s , Montana Robert J. Emmons argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : Dzivi, Conklin, Johnson and Nybo, Great F a l l s , Montana Louis D . Nybo argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: March 8 , 1976 Decided : k!AR 2 5 1976 Filed: 1, 5 1976 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the district court, Cascade County. Plaintiff-wife filed an action seeking separate maintenance and alimony. Defendant-husband answered and counterclaimed requesting a divorce. The court granted de- fendant a divorce, denied alimony, but awarded plaintiff a judg- ment for the sum of $23,500, plus interest from the date of the separation. Defendant appeals seeking a reversal of the money judgment . Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1967 and no children were born of this marriage. Plaintiff had been previous- ly married, was divorced, and had the custody of three children of that marriage. She received $250 per month per child for the support of the children who were 8, 10 and 11 years old at the time their parents were divorced. As a result of the property settlement from her former husband, plaintiff had a net worth of approximately $70,000 consisting principally of stocks. Defendant-husband was a widower with five children, all were older than plaintiff's children. Following the marriage, plaintiff's three children moved to Montana to live with them at defendant's ranch. Also, during the marriage at least three of defendant's children were at the ranch home. Defendant's ranch consists of some 3,800 acres and his net worth at the time of the trial was approximately $800,000. The trial court found that though there was no formal agreement or understanding between plaintiff and defendant with regard to the children's support money, it is not disputed that during the marriage plaintiff deposited that money into a checking account, together with the income from her stocks, amounting to approximately $3,000 per year, and from the account she ran the family household. During the marriage she paid for all groceries except meat, medical expenses, c a r p e t i n g , a n automobile, its r e p a i r s , l i c e n s i n g and t a x e s , d r u g s t o r e b i l l s , c l o t h i n g , t r i p s , Christmas g i f t s , and miscellaneous household expenditures. Dur- ing t h e marriage defendant gave p l a i n t i f f no money f o r her support, nor d i d he make any d e p o s i t s i n p l a i n t i f f ' s household checking account. For f i v e y e a r s he had a wife, a homemaker, a companion, and a provider f o r t h a t home a t no c o s t t o him. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t during t h e t i m e p l a i n t i f f maintained t h e household checking account she made d e p o s i t s i n t h e amount of $55,802.42. A f t e r considering a number of deductions which t h e c o u r t found w e r e of b e n e f i t t o p l a i n t i f f o r her c h i l d - r e n , t h e c o u r t found p l a i n t i f f had spent i n t h e way of family c o n t r i b u t i o n s t h e sum of $40,012.94. While g r a n t i n g defendant t h e divorce, and r e f u s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s r e q u e s t f o r alimony, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d f i n d p l a i n t i f f - w i f e was e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a g a i n s t defendant f o r assets she expended f o r t h e e n t i r e f a m i l y ' s b e n e f i t and f o r h e r s e r v i c e s a s a wife and mother, i n t h e sum of $23,500 p l u s i n t e r e s t a t s i x percent from May 31, 1973. O n appeal, defendant-husband a l l e g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d : (1) I n awarding a judgment f o r $23,500 on t h e f a c t s of t h e case, and i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e of s e p a r a t i o n . ( 2 ) I n i t s award of $934 r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e amount tendered by defendant t o p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e f u r n i t u r e and t h e l i k e l e f t a t t h e ranch, and f o r i n t e r e s t on such amount. W e f i n d no m e r i t i n a p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t i s s u e . A n e f f o r t is made t o a t t a c k t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e award by arguing t h a t it is alimony and t h e r e f o r e a s e r i o u s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l question a r i s e s . The c a s e was f i l e d before t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . Appellant cannot r e l y on r i g h t s a r i s i n g under A r t i c l e 11, Section 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , f o r under t h e T r a n s i t i o n Schedule Section 3 any " r i g h t s , procedural o r substantive, c r e a t e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e * * * s h a l l be prospective and not r e t r o a c t i v e . " Clontz v. Clontz, 166 Mont. 206, 531 P.2d The p r i n c i p a l a t t a c k of t h e i s s u e is d i r e c t e d t o whether t h e r e were s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s find- on ings and conclusions of law. Appellant r e l i e d a n d argues e a r l y cases of t h i s Court concerning whether o r n o t a housewife is e n t i t l e d t o reimbursement o r damages i n a divorce a c t i o n . Such a u t h o r i t y is c l e a r l y a n a c h r o n i s t i c i n view of t h e modern approach t o domestic r e l a t i o n s l i t i g a t i o n which t h i s Court has recognized and which Montana's l e g i s l a t u r e has followed by adopting t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, Chapter 3, T i t l e 48, R.C.M. 1947. That A c t attempts t o do away with a l l of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e views and procedures i n o r d e r t o accomplish what i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of not only t h e c h i l d r e n , i f any, b u t t h e husband o r wife without regard t o t h e type of r e l i e f t h e husband and wife may be seeking. Tolson v. Tolson, 145 Mont. 87, 399 P.2d 754; Bloom v. Bloom, 150 Mont. 511, 437 P.2d 1; Hodgson v. Hodgson, 156 Mont. 469, 482 P.2d 140; Libra v. Libra, 157 Mont. 252, 484 H e r e t h e record abounds with s u b s t a n t i a l uncontroverted evidence concerning t h e f i s c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of respondent made during t h e marriage, which supports her claim. W e w i l l n o t hand- cuff t h e t r i a l c o u r t by n o t allowing it t o make an award it f i n d s e q u i t a b l e under t h e circumstances of t h e case. Admittedly it w a s d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t and would have been f o r t h i s Court, t o a r r i v e a t an exact f i g u r e t o compensate respondent. However, she did c o n t r i b u t e i n excess of $40,000 during t h e s i x y e a r s of marriage and t h e f i n a l award amounts t o less than $4,000 per year. I n view of t h e f a c t a s u b s t a n t i a l portion of respondent's c o n t r i b u t i o n went t o t h e b e n e f i t of a p p e l l a n t and h i s c h i l d r e n , t h u s f r e e i n g a p p e l l a n t of t h a t f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , w e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and con- c l u s i o n s of law. A s t o t h e q u e s t i o n of i n t e r e s t on t h e judgment, appel- l a n t argues t h a t s e c t i o n 17-204, R.C.M. 1947, i s a p p l i c a b l e and i n t e r e s t can be awarded from a d a t e p r i o r t o judgment only when t h e damages a r e c e r t a i n o r can be made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n . H e cites i n support Eskestrand v . Wunder, 94 Mont. 57, 20 P.2d 622. S e c t i o n 17-204, R.C.M. 1947, relates o n l y t o damages and t h e award made h e r e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t is n o t f o r damages. Rather, it i s an e q u i t a b l e amount awarded on reimbursement. I n t e r e s t was awarded from t h e f i l i n g of t h e c l a i m and even though t h e claim was u n l i q u i d a t e d u n t i l t h e c o u r t reduced it t o t h e amount of t h e award, we can f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n allow- i n g t h e award of i n t e r e s t t o stand from t h e d a t e g r a n t e d , con- s i d e r i n g t h e f a c t it i s based upon a c a s h o u t l a y made by respond- e n t t h a t d i r e c t l y b e n e f i t e d a p p e l l a n t . A s concerns t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e $934.34, t h e amount a p p e l l a n t paid by check t o respondent f o r t h e f u r n i t u r e , e t a l , l e f t by her a t t h e ranch, l a t e r r e t u r n e d t o a p p e l l a n t on a d v i c e of counsel, t h e i n t e r e s t should n o t begin t o r u n u n t i l t h e d a t e of t h e judgment. Kovash v . Knight, Mont . 1 54.5 P-2d 10911 33 St.Rep. 159. Judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is affirmed. The cause is remanded t o t h a t c o u r t f o r compliance w i t h t h i s opinion. /- Hon. Arthur Martin, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of James Har7n. %---- - --- ----- ------------- Jastices A - 5 - M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell specially concurring: I concur i n the r e s u l t . Justice.