No. 89-480 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

LOIS A. MANNIX, n/k/a LOIS -AUSTIN, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

and 

RALPH E. MANNIX, JR., 

Petitioner and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Powell, 

The Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Byron W. Boggs, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Kerry N. Newcomer; Geiszler & Newcomer, Missoula, 

Montana 

Filed: 

submitted on Briefs: Feb. 15, 1990 

~ecided: March 27 , 1990 

f Clerk 
Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Appellant Ralph E. Mannix Jr. (Mannix) appeals the order 

issued by the Fourth Judicial ~istrict Court, Missoula County, 

granting ~ois A. Mannix, now Lois Austin ma us tin), interest on the 

sum of $5,050.00. The District Court ordered Mannix to pay Austin 

interest from January 20, 1982, to August 8, 1989, on a $5,050.00 

principal obligation created by the parties1 Property Settlement 

and Custody Agreement. Mannix now appeals the District Court 

order. We affirm. 

~annixls issue on appeal can be summarized as follows: 

 id the ~istrict Court err by awarding us tin interest on a 

debt created by the parties! property settlement agreement? 

Austin and p an nix were married on November 28, 1964. On 

August 20, 1981they were granted a legal separation. The parties 

entered into a Property Settlement and Custody Agreement on January 

20, 1982, as part of a Joint Petition for Dissolution. On January 

21, 1982, the District Court issued a final decree, incorporating 

the parties1 Property Settlement and Custody Agreement. The 

property settlement provided that ann nix pay $5,050.00 to Austin 

for her interest in a Deer Lodge residence. The payment was due 

upon sale of the property. 

After the dissolution of the marriage, Mannix never listed the 

property for sale or made the $5,050.00 payment to Austin. 

~ccording to the record, Mannix allegedly either rented or loaned 

the premises to relatives and made no attempt to sell it. ~espite 

demands by Austin for payment, ann nix refused to make the payment 

provided by the Agreement and Decree to ust tin. 

In September of 1988, ust tin filed a petition with the 

District Court, in which she requested, among otherthings, payment 

of the $5,050.00, recovery of interest on that amount from January 

20, 1982 and her attorney fees. ann nix responded denying any 
obligation to pay the principal sum. He claimed that since the 

property had never been listed for sale and that payment was due 

upon sale, the $5,050.00 payment was not due us tin. 

Subsequently, Austin served Mannix with a number of 

interrogatories and requests for production to establish Mannix1s 

ability to pay the $5,050.00 during the years after the dissolution 

of the marriage. Although ann nix admitted that the residence had 

never been offered for sale, he refused to answer m us tin's other 

discovery requests and refused to comply with orders compelling 

discovery. On March 16, 1989, the ~istrict Court ordered immediate 

payment of $5,050.00 due Austin, and awarded Austin her attorney's 

fees and costs. On April 11, 1989, Mannix paid the $5,050.00 and 

attorney's fees as ordered by the District Court. 

The ~istrict Court also ordered a hearing to determine, among 

other things, whether ust tin was entitled to interest on the 

$5,050.00 and on what date such interest would commence if 

allowable. The District Court found, on August 8, 1989, that 

"Ralph E. Mannix Jr., shall pay to ~ois ust tin interest on 

$5,050.00 at the rate of 10% per annum from January 20, 1982, the 

original date of judgment, to the date of this order . . . . II 

 ann nix now appeals the District Court's August 8th order awarding 

interest to Austin. 

I 

Did the District Court err by awarding Austin interest on a 

debt created by the parties' property settlement agreement? 

An obligation arises either from the contract of the parties 

or by operation of law. Section 28-1-102, MCA. In this case, the 

obligation arose under contract, i.e., the partiest Property 

Settlement Agreement. The contract clause in the ~greement at 

issue in this case stated the following: 

1. It is agreed that Ralph E. Mannix, Jr., shall 

purchase the interest of Lois A. Mannix [Austin] in said 

property for the sum of FIVE THOUSAND FIFTY and no/100 

DOLLARS ($5,050.00). Said payment shall be made upon 

sale of the house. [Emphasis added.] 

2. Should any action be commenced to enforce, modify or 
interpret any provision contained herein, the Court, as 

a cost of suit, shall award a reasonable attorney's fee 

to the successful party. 

This language requires Mannix to purchase Austin's interest 

in the Deer Lodge residence for $5,050.00. Payment, according to 

the Agreement was to be delayed until the sale of the house. 

Austin contends the Agreement clearly contemplated the residence 

would be offered for sale; however, the obligation and the amount 

of money due Austin were fixed at the time of the Agreement. This 

obligation was incorporated as part of the Final Decree dissolving 

the parties' marriage. 

In contrast, Mannix contends Austin's right to receive the 

$5,050.00 occurred upon the sale of the house. We disagree with 

Mannix, and adopt the District Court finding that Austin's right 

to receive the $5,050.00 occurred on January 21, 1982, the date of 

the Final Decree. The District Court's Decree of January 21, 1982, 

vested in Austin the right to receive payment of the $5,050.00. 

Even though the payment was to be paid in the future, i.e., upon 

the sale of the house, the right to that money vested on the day 

the court entered the Final Decree. 

Clearly Mannix is obligated to pay interest on the $5,050.00 

he owes Austin. Rule 54(a), M.R.Civ.P. states "A judgment is the 

final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or 

proceeding and as used in these rules includes a decree . . .It The 

1982 Decree in this case was the final determination of the rights 

of the parties, and therefore a judgment. Rule 54(a), M.R.Civ.P. 

Under the Decree or Judgment, Mannix became obligated to pay Austin 
$5,050.00 in 1982. As we have stated in In re the Marriage of 

Knudson (1981), 191 Mont. 204, 208, 622 P.2d 1025, 1027, once a 

person is liable for a money judgment, and payment is not made, the 

person entitled to the judgment is further entitled to a fair rate 

of interest. According to 5 25-9-205, MCA, interest is payable at 

a rate of 10% per annum. Section 25-9-205, MCA, applies to 

judgments in marital dissolution cases, such as this one, where 

the decree is silent about interest. In re the Marriage of Martens 

(1981), 196 Mont. 71, 76, 637 P.2d 523, 526; Williams v. Budke 

(1980), 186 Mont. 71, 79, 606 P.2d 515, 519. Accordingly, we adopt 

the District Court finding that Mannix owes Austin interest on the 

$5,050.00 obligation, at a rate of 10% per annum. However, the 

interest awarded should be paid for the period from January 20, 

1982 through April 11, 1989, instead of August 8, 1989, as ordered 

by the District Court. 

Despite this clear obligation to pay interest to Austin, 

Mannix argues that Austin's right to receive the $5,050.00 did not 

vest on a I'particular dayn as specified under the statute for 

prejudgment interest. Section 27-1-211, MCA. Section 27-1-211, 

MCA, provides : 

Risht to interest. Every person who is entitled to 

recover damages certain or capable of being made certain 

by calculation and the right to recover which is vested 

in him upon a particular day is entitled to recovery 

interest and thereon from that day . . . 

Mannix's reliance on 5 27-1-211, MCA, is unappropriate in this 

case, since the issue here concerns "post judgmentn interest, 

rather than prejudgment interest under 5 27-1-211, MCA. 
Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's order, and award 

Austin attorney's fees and costs incurred in this appeal to be 

fixed by the District Court. 

We Concur: 

Justices 

/