No. 91-273 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

CYNTHIA JO EIDE, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

V. 

CLARENCE A. EIDE, JR., 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteeth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Rosebud, 

The Honorable Joe L. Hegel, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Leonard J. Haxby, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana 

For Respondent: 

J. Dennis Corbin; Brown, Huss & Corbin, Miles City, 

Montana 

i Submitted on Briefs: October 24, 1991 

Decided: December 3, 1991 

Clerk 
Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The appellant, Clarence Eide, Jr., appeals from the decree of 

dissolution of his marriage to the respondent, Cynthia Jo Eide, 

entered in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Rosebud County, 

Montana, which awarded the respondent $400 per month maintenance. 

We affirm. 

The appellant raises the following issues on appeal: 

1. Was the District Court's award of maintenance to the wife 

supported by the evidence? 

2. Did the District Court err in awarding maintenance in an 

amount exceeding the amount requested by the wife in her petition 

for dissolution of marriage? 

Cynthia and Clarence Eide, Jr., were married on December 23, 

1967. They separated in March of 1988; the Sixteenth Judicial 

District Court entered a decree of dissolution on March 28, 1991. 

The parties have two children who were of legal age at the time of 

the dissolution. Therefore, the only issues on appeal concern 

maintenance. 

During the marriage, the wife was primarily a homemaker who 

worked at various jobs. The husband was employed by Montana Power 

Company during the last nine years of the marriage, earning 

approximately $40,000 per year at the time of separation. 

On July 1, 1988, the wife filed her petition for dissolution 

of marriage seeking maintenance, an equitable division of the 

marital property, her attorney's fees, and other equitable relief 

as the court deemed proper. Shortly thereafter the husband, wife, 

2 
and their respective attorneys began negotiations to amicably 

determine the distribution of the marital property. A document 

drafted by the husband's attorney and titled "Separation, Custody, 

Support and Property Settlement Agreement" resulted from these 

negotiations. The husband signed this document on August 12, 1988, 

and forwarded it to the wife who failed to sign it. 

Among other provisions, the document set forth a division of 

the marital property. The wife was to receive the family home 

including all liabilities affecting the home (approximately 

$59,000), $10,000 cash, a vehicle, household goods, and assorted 

hand tools. The document provided that the husband would receive 

four vehicles, a motorcycle, a jet boat, various tools, guns, a 

hangar, an airplane, some Idaho property, his payroll savings, his 

employee stock shares, credit union stock shares, and the amount in 

the couple's checking account. The husband was to assume the 

liabilities associated with these items of approximately $4,745. 

The document made no reference to maintenance. 

After a breakdown in negotiations, the husband's attorney 

scheduled the dissolution hearing which was held on August 25, 

1989. At the hearing, the husband was represented by counsel while 

the wife was not. 

The hearing revealed a great disparity in earning capacity 

between the husband and the wife. The husband continued to earn 

between $40,000 and $45,000 per year at Montana Power Company while 

the wife, employed as a waitress, earned approximately $574 per 

month (including $74 per month interest income on the cash 

3 
settlement the wife received from the husband). Although the wife 

failed to sign the Settlement Agreement, the hearing revealed that 

she agreed to it during the oral negotiations even though she felt 

it was unfair. Additionally, at the time of negotiations, the wife 

agreed not to accept maintenance. However, when she received the 

written agreement, circumstances had changed and she no longer felt 

the terms of the agreement were fair. Finally, the hearing 

revealed that the husband had substantially complied with the terms 

of the agreement. 

After hearing the evidence presented by the parties, the court 

ordered the parties to submit financial statements and took the 

matter under advisement. On December 13, 1990, the District Court 

issued a Memorandum and Order disposing of the case. The District 

Court found that the wife lacked sufficient property to provide for 

her reasonable needs and that she was unable to support herself 

through appropriate employment. In addition to adopting the 

portions of the Settlement Agreement concerning property 

distribution, the court ordered the husband to pay $400 per month 

permanent spousal maintenance. The husband appeals the District 

Court's award of maintenance to the wife. 

T 

I. 

Was the District Court's award of maintenance to the wife 

supported by the evidence? 

A district court must engage in a two-tiered analysis when 

awarding maintenance in a dissolution proceeding. Maintenance can 

be awarded after an equitable division of the marital property has 

4 
been established pursuant to § 40-4-202, MCA, and the criteria of 

5 40-4-203, MCA, have been satisfied. A district court's wide 

discretion in determining a maintenance award will not be disturbed 

unless it is clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Aanenson (1979), 

183 Mont. 229, 235, 598 P.2d 1120, 1123. Thus, this Court's 

function on appeal is limited to a determination of whether the 

district court's findings are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), 

M.R.Civ.P.; In re Marriage of Luisi (1988), 232 Mont. 243, 248, 756 

P.2d 456, 459. 

In the case at bar, the parties did not raise the question of 

whether the property was equitably distributed, nor did they appeal 

the distribution. Therefore, we limit our review to the issues of 

maintenance. 

In a dissolution proceeding, the court may award maintenance 

only if the court finds that the spouse seeking maintenance lacks 

sufficient property to provide for one's reasonable needs and is 

unable to support oneself through appropriate employment. Section 

40-4-203(1), MCA. In this case, the court found that the wife 

lacked sufficient property to support herself. Apart fromthe cash 

settlement, all property the wife received was either income 

consuming or at least non-income-producing, which contributed to 

her inability to support herself. The court also found that the 

wife was unable to support herself through appropriate employment. 

The wife had no marketable skills because during the 21 years of 

marriage she primarily cared for the children and the home. 

Consequently, she was only able to earn minimum wage. These facts 

5 
are supported by the record and are sufficient to satisfy the first 

tier of !j 40-4-203(1), MCA, supporting the wife's eligibility for 

maintenance. 

After finding the wife was eligible for maintenance, the court 

engaged in step two of the analysis to determine the amount and 

duration of maintenance pursuant to !j 40-4-203(2), MCA. That 

section sets forth specific factors which the court must consider 

in making this determination including: 

1. The financial resources of the party seeking 

maintenance, including the marital property apportioned 

to that spouse and that spouse's ability to meet his or 

her own needs independently: 

2. the time necessary to acquire sufficient education 

or training to enable the spouse seeking maintenance to 

find appropriate employment; 

3. the standard of living established during the 

marriage: 

4. the duration of the marriage; 

5. 

spouse seeking maintenance; and 

6. the other spouse's ability to meet his or her own 

needs while meeting the needs of the spouse seeking 

maintenance. 

The court addressed the above criteria in its Memorandum and 

Order, dated December 13, 1990, before awarding $400 per month 

permanent maintenance to the wife. First, the court found a great 

disparity between the incomes of the parties. With regard to the 

husband's earning capacity, the court noted that he has been 

employed by Montana Power Company for a number of years earning an 

average of $40,000 per year and is expected to continue earning 

approximately the same amount. With regard to the wife's earning 

the age and physical and emotional condition of the 

6 
capacity, the court found that, including the interest income from 

the $10,000 cash settlement, the wife's independent earnings of 

$574 per month were slightly above the poverty level and 

insufficient to meet her monthly needs. 

After properly considering the other factors of 5 40-4-203 (2) , 

MCA, the court found that the wife was entitled to $400 per month 

permanent maintenance because: (1) she would not benefit from job 

training; (2) with the husband's income and his retirement benefits 

he would continue to enjoy the standard of living maintained during 

the marriage while the wife, even with maintenance, would enjoy a 

substantially lower standard of living; (3) of the long duration of 

the marriage (approximately 21 years prior to separation) : and (4) 

the husband was able to pay maintenance while meeting his own 

needs. 

In light of the foregoing facts, we find that the District 

Court's findings were not clearly erroneous. We affirm the 

judgment of the District Court on this issue. 

11. 

Did the District Court err in awarding maintenance in an 

amount exceeding the amount requested by the wife in her petition 

for dissolution of marriage? 

The husband contends that even if this Court finds that the 

maintenance award is supported by the evidence, the award is void. 

The husband's basis for this contention is that the District Court 

abused its discretion in awarding maintenance in an amount greater 

than the amount requested by the wife in her petition. We 

7 
disagree. 

The wife contends that although she only requested $300 per 

month maintenance in her petition, the court was not precluded from 

granting other appropriate relief if such relief was supported by 

the record. The wife's request in her petition for "other and 

further suitable arrangements as the Court may deem just and 

proper" was a sufficient request to award maintenance in an amount 

greater than requested by the wife. Further, the wife also cites 

Rule 54(c), M.R.Civ.P., in support of the court's authority. Rule 

54(c), M.R.Civ.P. (1989), provides in part: 

Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered 

by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief 

to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is 

entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief 

in his pleadings. 

Rule 54(c), M.R.Civ.P., grants the court discretion which must be 

viewed according to the circumstances of the case. In re Marriage 

of Hughes (1989), 236 Mont. 427, 430, 770 P.2d 499, 501. 

In light of our discussion on the first issue above, the 

District Court had the power to award maintenance in an amount 

greater than the wife sought in her petition because such an award 

was supported by the evidence. Therefore, we hold that the court 

did not err and the judgment of the District Court on this issue is 

af f inned. 

8 
We concur: 

-ices 

9 
December 3. 1991 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following 

named: 

Leonard J. Haxby 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 3008 

Butte, MT 59702-3008 

J. Dennis Corbin 

Brown, Huss & Corbin 

P.O. Box 128 

Miles City, MT 59301 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA 

BY: 

Deputy L