No. 84-335 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1985 

IN RE MARRIAGE OF 

PHILIP J. MILANOVICH, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

and 

ROSEMARY MILANOVICH , 

Respondent and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Silver Bow, 

The Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Hull & Sherlock; Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Helena, 

Montana 

For Respondent : 

Deirdre Caughlan, Butte, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: Nov. 29, 1984 

Decided: ~pril 8, 1985 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Philip J. Milanovich (Philip) appeals from the order of 

the District Court of Silver Bow County dated June 21, 1984, 

fixing attorney's fees for Rosemary J. Milanovich (Rosemary) 

in the sum of $1,727.00 for services rendered prior to the 

entry of this Court's order of February 16, 1982 and for 

attorneys' fees of $750.50 for services required following 

that order. We affirm the awards. 

The issues presented for review are: 

1. Did the District Court err in its order of June 21, 

1984, awarding $1,727.00 for attorneys' fees as originally 

fixed by the order of March 10, 1982? 

2. Did the District Court err in its order of June 21, 

1984, fixing $757.50 as attorneys' fees pursuant to the 

specific ord.er of the Supreme Court? 

The parties came before this Court in Milanovich v. 

Milanovich (Mont. 1982), 655 P.2d 959, 39 St.Rep. 1554 

(Milanovich I) . Milanovich I sets out the continuing problems in this divorce proceeding, which was commenced in 1975 

and involved the custody of four minor children. In 

Milanovich I, this Court concluded basically as follows: 

1. It could not review the lower court's finding of 

contempt on an appeal. 

2. In rendering its decision on visitation rights, the 

District Court erred in failing to allow Philip to present 

psychiatric evidence pertaining to Rosemary. 

3. The District Court erred in failing to make specific 

findings as to the children's wishes regarding custody. 

4. The District Court erred in failing to appoint an 

attorney for the children. 

In Milanovich I, the Court pointed out tha.t Rosemary was 

fit to have temporary custody of the children and that 
immediate visitation rights were to he given to her. This 

Court directed the District Court to fix and order attorneys' 

fees to be paid by Philip to Rosemary. Fees were assessed in 

the amount of $757.50 by the District Court in its order of 

June 21, 1984. 

Milanovich v. Milanovich (Mont. 1982), 655 P.2d 963, 

39 St.Rep. 2146 (Milanovich 11) , addressed the petition for 

writ of review of the contempt order issued by the District 

Court on February 16, 1982. This Court affirmed that contempt order in Milanovich I1 . 

After Milanovich I and Milanovich 11, the District Court 

conducted a hearing on Rosemary's request for a determination 

of fees. This resulted in the District Court's order dated 

June 21, 1984, awarding $1,727.00 as attorneys' fees, as 

originally fixed by a prior order of the District Court, and 

$757.50 as costs a.nd fees incurred in connection with Rosemary's motion to compel Philip's compliance with the District 

Court's visitation order. Philip appeals the order awarding 

fees. 

I 

Did the District Court err in its order of June 21, 

1984, awarding $1,727 for attorneys' fees ba.sed upon the 

District Court's order of March 10, 1982? 

As previously indicated, the award of $1,745 was originally made by the District Court on March 10, 1982, prior to 

both Milanovich I and Milanovich 11. With a different judge 

presiding, the District Court issued an order on June 21, 

1984, that awarded substantially the same amount for the 

services in question as had been awarded on March 10, 1982. 

Philip contends the award was improper because Milanovich I 

reversed the judgment of the District Court. The only exception from that reversal was the contempt holding, which is 
not a part of Milanovich I. Philip argues that as a result 

of Milanovich I, the March 10, 1982 determination of fees was 

cancelled. 

That contention disregards Mil.an.ovich 11, wherein this 

Court affirmed the contempt order of the District Court. As 

we review the order, dated February 16, 1982, which was 

affirmed by Milanovich 11, we find the following finding and 

conclusion: 

"11. That the Court hereby finds that the Plaintiff's conduct towards the Defendant resulting in 

the a.ction now before the Court is vexacious [vexatious], harrassing and unreasons-ble and. the Defendant is entitled to have her reasonable attorney's 

fees paid by the Plaintiff." 

That order of the District Court found Philip guilty of 

contempt, fined him $500, sentenced him to five days in jail 

with the sentence to be suspended for one year upon compliance with the court's order, and further ordered a hearing to 

determine the amount of attorneys' fees to which Rosemary was 

entitled. 

The February 16, 1982 order primarily addresses the 

contempt on the part of Philip and the penalties attached as 

a result of that contempt. The essential elements of the 

February 16, 1982 contempt order were affirmed in 

Milanovich 11. As a result, the award of attorneys' fees by 

order dated March 10, 1982 was affirmed, even though the 

amount was reduced from $1745.00 to $1727.00. 

We approve and affirm the award of $1,727.00 for attorneys' fees. 

Did the District Court err in its order of June 21, 

1984, fixing $757.50 as attorneys' fees pursuant to the 

specific order of the Supreme Court? 
In substance, Philip contends that a portion of such 

award is proper, but argues that there was not a sufficient 

connection between other services performed. and. the motion in 

question. Philip therefore requests a reduction in the award 

In Talmage v. Gruss (Mont. 19831, 658 P-2d 419, 

40 St.Rep. 176, we set forth in detail the rules to be applied in the fixing of attorneys' fee. The following statement from that case is particularly pertinent: 

"The amount fixed as attorney fees is largely 

discretionary with the District Court, and we will 

not disturb its judgment in the absence of an abuse 

of that discretion." 658 P.2d at 420, 40 St.Rep. 

at 177. 

The record contains substantial evidence to support the 

conclusions of the District Court. We find no abuse of 

discretion. The award of $757.50 is affirmed. 

Defendant Rosemary requests costs be assessed for a 

frivol-ous appeal. In view of the confusing state of the 

record and the possibility of good faith misunderstanding on 

the part of counsel, we will not assess such costs. However, 

we do point out to counsel that this is the third time in 

which this bitterly-fought matter has been before us. We 

will carefully consider the propriety of further proceedings 

before this Court. 

We concur: rn 

Justice 

- 334~