Title: HAYWOOD v SEDILLO
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12920
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 1975

No. 12920 IN T H E SUPRm C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 C A R L W. HAYWOOD, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs - C A R O L E L. HAYWOOD SEDILLO, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : J u l i o K. Morales argued, Missoula , Montana For Respondent : Jordan, Cummings, Sullivan & Baldassin, Missoula, Montana Lee A. Jordan argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: April 10, 1975 Decided : MAY 2 3 1975 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by defendant, Carole L. S e d i l l o , formerly Carole Haywood, from an order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County, denying her p e t i t i o n f o r modification of custody. The p a r t i e s , Carole S e d i l l o and Carl W. Haywood, were married i n 1 9 6 6 i n F l a g s t a f f , Arizona. Two c h i l d r e n w e r e born of t h i s marriage, Carl David, born August 15, 1968, and Charles Willard, born June 2 , 1970. M a r i t a l d i f f i c u l t i e s a r o s e between t h e p a r t i e s and they separated i n January 1973, while r e s i d i n g i n Missoula, Montana. Carole moved t o F l a g s t a f f with t h e c h i l d - r e n and l i v e d t h e r e with her p a r e n t s u n t i l May 18, 1973. O n May 18, 1973, an argument a r o s e between Carole, C a r l and C a r o l e ' s parents. A s a r e s u l t of t h i s argument, Carole ceased l i v i n g with her p a r e n t s , l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n with her parents, and began l i v i n g with her present husband, Rudy S e d i l l o . C a r l then brought t h e c h i l d r e n back t o Missoula. Carl commenced divorce proceedings i n Missoula on June 18, 1973. Although Carole was personally served i n Arizona with t h e complaint and summons, a d e f a u l t decree w a s entered on J u l y 23, 1973, granting C a r l an absolute divorce, custody of t h e c h i l d r e n , and s e t t l i n g t h e i r property r i g h t s . A f t e r having been served with t h e complaint and summons and p r i o r t o t h e e n t r y of d e f a u l t , Carole returned t o Missoula and on t h e morning of J u l y 17, 1973, i n t h e words of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t she : " s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y , and without t h e knowledge o r consent of t h e p l a i n t i f f d i d , a g a i n s t t h e w i l l of t h e p l a i n t i f f , and by s t e a l t h and f o r c e t a k e t h e minor c h i l d r e n of t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o from t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s custody and c o n t r o l and force- f u l l y remove them from t h e b a b y - s i t t e r ' s c a r e which p l a i n t i f f had l e f t them with when he went t o work * * *." Carole removed t h e children from t h e S t a t e of Montana. Carl d i d not learn t h e c h i l d r e n ' s whereabouts u n t i l two weeks l a t e r when, upon learning of the custody award, Carole l e f t t h e children with her parents and asked them t o c a l l C a r l . Carl then brought t h e children back t o Montana. Carole married her present husband on April 1 9 , 1974. Shortly t h e r e a f t e r , Carole returned t o Missoula. The i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n t o modify custody was f i l e d May 3, 1974. Two separate hearings were held before t h e d i s t r i c t court. The f i r s t , held May 1 4 , 1974, a t which Carol and her husband t e s t i f i e d , was continued i n order t o permit Carl t i m e t o take depositions of persons i n Arizona. The second, a t which Carl presented h i s evidence, was held July 8 , 1974. This Court has been provided with a t r a n s c r i p t of t h e f i r s t hearing and a statement of t h e evidence, pursuant t o Rule 9 ( c ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., of t h e second hearing. A t t h e c l o s e of t h e evidence a t t h e second hearing, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ruled from t h e bench i n t h e presence of counsel f o r both p a r t i e s t h a t he was denying C a r o l e ' s p e t i t i o n . The order w a s reduced t o writing and f i l e d two days l a t e r . However, no n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment, a s required by Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R. Civ.P., was ever served upon Carole. Carole f i l e d n o t i c e of appeal from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s order on September 6 , 1974. Three i s s u e s a r e presented on appeal: (1) Whether t h e notice of appeal was f i l e d within t h e time permitted by Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P.? ( 2 ) Whether Carole i s e n t i t l e d t o custody a s a matter of law based upon t h e "tender years" presumption of s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947? (3) Whether t h e welfare of t h e children i s b e s t served by granting custody t o Carl? A s a preliminary matter, we must f i r s t determine whether t h i s Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s appeal. Rule 5, M.R. App.Civ.P. reads: "The time within which an appeal from a judg- ment o r an order must be taken s h a l l be 30 days from t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , except t h a t i n cases where service of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment is required by Rule 77 (d) of t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Pro- cedure t h e t i m e s h a l l be 30 days from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of entry of judgment * * *." Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P., reads: "Within 1 0 days a f t e r e n t r y of judgment i n an ac- t i o n i n which an appearance has been made, n o t i c e of such e n t r y , together with a copy of such judg- ment o r a general description of t h e nature and amount of r e l i e f and damages thereby granted, s h a l l be served by t h e prevailing p a r t y upon t h e adverse party." The notice of appeal was f i l e d 60 days a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ruled from t h e bench and 58 days a f t e r t h e order w a s re- duced t o writing and f i l e d . C a r l argues t h a t s i n c e both counsel had a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g and since t h e law does not r e q u i r e i d l e a c t s , t h a t no n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was necessary and t h e t i m e f o r appeal lapsed. Service of n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of judgment is not an i d l e a c t . I n order t o provide c e r t a i n t y i n t h e law, some a r b i t r a r y point must be chosen from which t h e time t o appeal may run. Th,at point by t h e Montana Rules i s t h e d a t e of service of t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment. N o notice of e n t r y of judgment having been served upon Carole, t h i s Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s appeal. I n summary, Carole's contentions a r e t h a t she has, s i n c e t h e divorce, remarried and s e t t l e d down; t h a t she now has t h e t i m e t o be a full-time mother; t h a t t h e children want t o l i v e with her; and, t h a t outbursts of violence on t h e p a r t of Carl show he i s u n f i t t o have custody. W e s h a l l examine t h e evidence presented t o t h e d i s t r i c t court : The earning c a p a c i t i e s of both Rudy and Carl were thoroughly explored. Rudy is f i n i s h i n g h i s college education with a major i n business accounting. He i s working f o r t h e post o f f i c e a s a mail c l e r k , full-time, a t $4.73 per hour, while attending night school part-time. H e receives b e n e f i t s under t h e G . I . B i l l of $261 a month while attending school, f o r which he has 12 months l e f t , and a d i s a b i l i t y compensation from t h e Navy of $77 a month. Upon graduation, he intends t o work f o r an accounting firm f o r two years and then a t t e n d law school. C a r l i s a f o r e s t e r by occupation, earning $1,200 a month. A t t h e time of t h e second hearing, he had a new job with Potlatch Corporation i n Idaho, scheduled t o s t a r t t h e following August, paying $1,500 a month. Much was made of t h e f a c t t h a t Rudy i s i n t h e process of buying h i s own t h r e e bedroom home. Oral testimony and photo- graphs were introduced bearing on t h e neighborhoods of t h e homes of both Rudy and Carl. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was i n a p o s i t i o n t o determine which w a s t h e b e t t e r environment f o r t h e children. Carole contends t h a t , being remarried and s e t t l e d down, she now has t h e time t o be a full-time mother and give t h e children a normal family r e l a t i o n s h i p . The evidence showed t h a t Carl leaves t h e children with baby-sitters while a t work. A t f i r s t t h e children were l e f t a t t h e b a b y - s i t t e r ' s residence, l a t e r Carl obtained a l i v e i n baby-sitter s o t h a t t h e boys could be i n t h e i r own home. With h i s old job, C a r l w a s away from t h e boys twelve n i g h t s a month. Although he admits h i s new job w i l l re- q u i r e some t r a v e l i n g , it w i l l be f o r one day only and he w i l l have t o s t a y overnight only occasionally. However, t h e only evidence i n t h e record a s t o any ac- t i v i t i e s Carole had with t h e children w a s during t h e two days i n July 1973, when Carole and Rudy played a l i t t l e s o f t b a l l with them, took them t o bowling p r a c t i c e and took them t o t h e Dairy Queen. During t h e period from J u l y 1973, t o May 1974, Carole made no attempt t o see t h e children and d i d not send them cards o r g i f t s on t h e i r birthdays, a t Christmas, o r any o t h e r t i m e . O n t h e o t h e r hand, t h e record is r e p l e t e with evidence of t h e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t Carl and t h e boys pursued together. Christina Frankenfield t e s t i f i e d Carl spends more t i m e with h i s children than any f a t h e r she has ever known; t h a t they go everywhere with t h e i r f a t h e r ; and, t h a t t h e r e is good communication between t h e children and t h e i r f a t h e r . Diane S a i l e r t e s t i f i e d Carl does everything with t h e boys and t h a t h i s whole l i f e appears t o in- volve t h e children. Carole contends t h e children want t o l i v e with h e r , r a t h e r than t h e i r f a t h e r . I n support of t h i s s h e and Rudy testi- f i e d t h e boys, on s e v e r a l occasions t o l d them they wanted t o go with her. The evidence a l s o showed t h a t i n t h e two weeks p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t hearing, Carole v i s i t e d t h e boys nearly everyday and on each occasion brought candy o r small presents i n an attempt t o influence t h e children. The baby-sitter overheard Carole tell- ing t h e boys t h a t i f anyone asked them who they wanted t o go with o r be with, they should be sure and say they wanted t o be with t h e i r mother, but not t o repeat t h i s conversation t o anyone, a s it was t o be " t h e i r s e c r e t " . Many witnesses t e s t i f i e d t h e c h i l d r e n r a r e l y spoke of t h e i r mother and were i n d i f f e r e n t toward her when she was gone. The witnesses r e l a t e d t h a t when Carole was i n town t h e boys be- came nervous, e x c i t a b l e , i r r i t a b l e and e a s i l y upset, t h e symptoms diminishing once Carole had gone. Much testimony was introduced bearing on t h e mutual love and a f f e c t i o n between Carl and t h e boys. Diana Danielson t e s t i f i e d t h e boys constantly t a l k about t h e i r f a t h e r and discuss i n g r e a t d e t a i l t h e a c t i v i t i e s they engage i n with him and grow excited when Carl is due home from work. Carole a l l e g e s C a r l ' s outbursts of temper and physical abuse show t h a t he i s u n f i t t o have custody. I n her testimony she aileged two instances i n 1967 and 1970, where Carl s t r u c k her and two instances May 18, 1973 and May 11, 1974, where Carl had her around t h e neck. Carl gave a d i f f e r e n t perspective on t h e latter incidents. The c r e d i b i l i t y of such a l l e g a t i o n s w a s f o r the d i s t r i c t court. Even i f believed, t h e i n c i d e n t s d i d not r e l a t e t o t h e children. The witnesses t e s t i f i e d t h a t Carl i s a firm d i s c i p l i n a r i a n , but loving. Carole herself t e s t i f i e d t h a t C a r l had never mistreated t h e children. N o purpose would be served i n r e c i t i n g f u r t h e r t h e evi- dence before t h e d i s t r i c t court, some of which favored Carl, some of which favored Carole. A s can be seen from t h e evidence heretofore r e c i t e d , t h e evidence was not so equal t h a t t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t was required t o award custody t o t h e mother pursuant t o s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947. There was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e award of custody when t h a t evidence is viewed i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o Carl, t h e prevailing party. This Court w i l l s u s t a i n such determination by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t based upon s u b s t a n t i a l c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. I n Eliason v. Eliason, 151 Mont. 409, 4 1 6 , 443 P.2d 884, t h i s Court said: "The t r i a l c o u r t , having observed and considered t h e appearance of t h e witnesses upon the witness stand, t h e i r manner of t e s t i f y i n g , t h e i r apparent candor o r want of candor, i n addition t o t h e testimony i t s e l f , i s i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n than t h i s Court t o decide questions of c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses and t h e weight t o be given t h e i r testi- mony. " The order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a firmed. f chief J u s t i c e We concur: ................................. Justices