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 2e 4977 
Mr. Jusrice Gene 3. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The district court, Flathead County, sitting without a 

jury, Hon. Robert S. Keller, District Judge presiding, granted 

L MrkTi FF in an action sac e. 

summary judgment to 

U-g alimony provisions of a foreign divorce decree. 

Eleanor Cicinia obtained a default divorce decree on 

grounds of desertion, incorporating a voluntary property settlement agreement part of which gave her $75 per week, payable 

each Monday for the balance of her life, unless she remarried. 

This amount was to include child support and minor medical care 

until the children reached majority. The parties were married 

in 1940 and the decree nisi was dated February 25, 1965, in 

the state of New Jersey. 

Defendant remarried and adopted the children of his present 

wife and moved to Kalispell, Montana in 1973. Defendant operates 

a business entitled "Northwest Sports, Inc.". 

Defendant defaulted in his alimony payments. On June 27, 

1974, plaintiff brought an action in New Jersey to determine 

arrearage, increase alimony, and determine attorney fees. Defendant filed two affidavits in his behalf in addition to a 

deposition. He was represented at the hearing by a New Jersey 

law firm but did not appear in person. 

The New Jersey court on April 25, 1975 granted judgment in 

the sum of $3,995. Plaintiff's prayer for additional alimony was 

denied. On June 23, 1975, the New Jersey court awarded attorney 

fees in the amount of $2,000 and $196.80 in costs. The New Jersey 

judgment was not appealed in New Jersey. 
The present action was filed in Montana to enforce the New 

Jersey judgment on September 15, 1975. 

Defendant contends the judgment cannot be enforced in 

Montana as it contravenes the constitutional and statutory rights 

of defendant and is against public policy of the state of Montana. 

Defendant also petitions the Montana court to modify the New 

Jersey decree prospectively and retroactively. In this regard, 

defendant speaks to the modification of the "decree nisi" of 

February 25, 1965, yet the record indicated this decree was made 

final May 26, 1965. 

Hon. Robert S. Keller, district judge, entered summary judgment May 5, 1976, under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., after briefs were 

submitted and oral argument heard, for plaintiff on the New 

Jersey judgment with the memo: 

"The Defendant raises no factual issues. The answer 

to the complaint, consists of conclusions, which raise 

issues of law, and are res adjudicata. 

"The 'counter-petition' to the complaint is something 

this Court does not understand." 

Defendant appeals from the summary judgment of the district 

court and presents these issues to this Court for review: 

1. Can summary judgment be entered on a foreign decree 

which enforcement of contravenes public policy or laws of Montana? 

2. Does full faith and credit compel enforcement of a 

foreign decree that lacks finality in New Jersey? 

4. Can a decree of divorce issued in another state be 

modified in Montana? 

Defendant appeared by counsel and affidavit and deposition 

in defense of his position at the court hearing in New Jersey, 

which denied him relief on April 25, 1975. He did not challenge 
the finality of that court's judgment on which the hearing was 

brought or challenge the court's jurisdiction, nor did he appeal 

from that court' s judgment. 

We note here that at all times pertinent hereto, defendant 

has been vigorously represented by counsel. The New Jersey 

judgments were final judgments rendered by a court which had 

proper jurisdiction only after an adversary proceeding. 

The Montana action merely seeks a judgment based upon the 

final judgments of the New Jersey court. The doctrines of res 

judicata and collateral estoppel bar the relitigation of the 

matters determined by the New Jersey court. The doctrine of 

full faith and credit allows the enforcement of the judgment. 

Art. IV, Section '1, United States Constitution; Section 93- 

1001-20, R.C.M. 1947; 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments $5 1226,1227,1230. 

The trial court correctly stated that the pleadings of 

defendant raise no fact issues but ultimate issues of law which 

are res adjudicata. 

r -2 Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ,, 

/.' " 

Justice 4 

W_e_ Concur : 

r' 1 ,.._4- '. 

Chief Just ice 

* 

A