Title: MARRIAGE OF JERMUSON v JERMUSON
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14489
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 1979

No. 14489 IN THE SUPREME COUKI' OF THE STATE OF PKNTANA 1979 IN R E THE M7muAGE OF J A C r n A MAE - S C P J , Petitioner and Appellant, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal frm: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Honorable R . D . Whillips, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gale R . Gustafson, Conrad, Mntana For Respondent: David H . Nelson, Brady, bbntana Sut=anitted on briefs: February 28, 1979 Decided: lRAR L 1 3 7 9 Filed : @O;r 7 - - $cfjQ M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Appellant J a c i n t a Mae Jermunson f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage a g a i n s t Dennis C a r t e r Jermunson on February 2, 1978, a f t e r approximately f o u r years of m a r - r i a g e . O n March 6, 1978, she f i l e d an amended p e t i t i o n , and t h e matter was heard t h e same day by t h e Honorable Ronald D. McPhillips. The p a r t i e s agreed t o t h e e n t e r i n g of a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n reserving with t h e c o u r t r u l i n g s on t h e question of property and support f o r p e t i t i o n e r . On March 2 4 , 1978, t h e d i s t r i c t judge entered f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law, and a decree. Determination of t h e property r i g h t s were reserved u n t i l a l a t e r d a t e . The property settlement was decreed by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on J u l y 1 4 , 1978. From t h e s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of l a w , and decree p e t i t i o n e r appeals. Two i s s u e s a r e presented on appeal: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l property? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n f a i l i n g t o provide maintenance f o r a period s u f f i c i e n t t o enable p e t i t i o n e r t o o b t a i n appropriate education o r t r a i n i n g ? The p a r t i e s w e r e married on February 8, 1974. A t t h e t i m e of t h e marriage p e t i t i o n e r had n o t f i n i s h e d high school. She d i d n o t a t t e n d school during t h e marriage, although schooling was a v a i l a b l e t o her. She had no marketable s k i l l s o r vocational t r a i n i n g and no o u t s i d e income o t h e r than a job she has held. P e t i t i o n e r d e s i r e s t o o b t a i n vocational t r a i n i n g t o become a nurse. Respondent i s a high school graduate and has had t r a i n - i n g i n t h e m i l i t a r y a s a d i e s e l mechanic. A t t h e p r e s e n t time he farms some 80 acres of land which was given t o him by h i s f a t h e r . H e i s employed by h i s f a t h e r a s a farmer and i s capable of doing o u t s i d e carpentry, backhoe work and general r e p a i r work. The p a r t i e s had an adjusted g r o s s income i n 1977 of $14,601.59. During t h e i r marriage t h e p a r t i e s l i v e d i n a mobile home located i n Brady, Montana. This mobile home w a s pur- chased f o r $8,900 f o r use a s t h e m a r i t a l home. Payments w e r e made on t h e mobile home during t h e course of t h e mar- r i a g e . During t h e marriage, t h e p a r t i e s paid f o r a 1972 Thunder- b i r d automobile which had previously been purchased by t h e husband and h i s f a t h e r and a l s o had paid f o r a 1974 Jeep pickup. They acquired personal property i n t h e course of t h e i r marriage and approximately 70 percent of t h i s property was taken by respondent when t h e marriage f a i l e d . P r i o r t o t h e marriage, a s noted, respondent had acquired 80 a c r e s of land from h i s f a t h e r , a 1968 Ford truck, t o o l box, motorcycle, snow mobile, a W i l l y ' s C-J Jeep, a dish- washer, and a dryer. P e t i t i o n e r contributed t o t h e a s s e t s of t h e family by her homemaking, aiding her husband's work a t t i m e s , and c o n t r i b u t i n g some of her small income t o t h e marriage. Directing our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , w e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l property. Both p a r t i e s were young when married. P e t i t i o n e r w a s not o u t of high school and d i d n o t possess any property o t h e r than wedding g i f t s . Respondent, f i v e years o l d e r than p e t i t i o n e r , had acquired some property and had been given property by h i s f a t h e r . I n four years of marriage, t h e p a r t i e s acquired l i t t l e property o t h e r than personal i t e m s which w e r e d i v i d e d by t h e t r i a l judge a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n . Due t o indebtedness on t h e p a r t of t h e couple, p r o p e r t y was acquired and s o l d . A t t h e t i m e of t h e d i s s o l u - t i o n , t h e c o u r t estimated t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e i n d e b t i n excess of $20,000. This f i g u r e was i n e r r o r , however, and t h e t o t a l d e b t amount, according t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t , was approximately $11,000. The c o u r t r e q u i r e d respondent t o assume t h a t d e b t , s o p e t i t i o n e r i s l e f t f r e e of any d e b t s t h a t accumulated during t h e marriage. Since t h e adoption of t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t which became e f f e c t i v e i n Montana on January 1, 1976, t h i s Court has had numerous c a s e s which c o n t r o l t h e d i s t r i - b u t i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y according t o t h e A c t . See Vivian v. Vivian (1978), Mont. , 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359; I n re Marriage of R e i l l y (1978), Mont. , 577 P.2d 840, 35 St.Rep. 451; and I n re Marriage of Johnsrud (1977) Mont. , 572 P.2d 902, 34 St.Rep. 1417. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n and f o l - lowed t h e s t a t u t e s and case law i n Montana. W e f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s f i r s t i s s u e . A s t o t h e second i s s u e , whether o r n o t t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding p e t i t i o n e r $1,500 a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , w e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t found, and properly s o , t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had acquired no n e t worth during t h e c o u r s e of t h e i r marriage. P e t i t i o n e r claims s h e i s n o t r e c e i v i n g h e r j u s t due from t h e marriage i n t h e amount of $1,500 and t h a t t h e amount i s i n s u f f i c i e n t . P e t i t i o n e r should recognize, however, t h a t under s e c t i o n 36-103, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-2-102 MCA, s h e has a j o i n t and mutual o b l i g a t i o n t o pay f o r t h e neces- sities of t h e marriage. The D i s t r i c t Court r e q u i r e d respon- d e n t t o assume a l l d e b t s , f r e e i n g p e t i t i o n e r of t h e s e o b l i - g a t i o n s which approximate $5,500 (her one-half of an $11,000 i n d e b t e d n e s s ) . The District Court considered a l l t h e f a c t s and d e t e r - mined n e i t h e r p a r t y a t f a u l t . W e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of $1,500 t o p e t i t i o n e r . I n n o t awarding maintenance t o p e t i t i o n e r under s e c t i o n 48-322, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-203 MCA, a g a i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o balance t h e needs of t h e p a r t i e s . Here t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were both capable of working and t h a t no maintenance was r e q u i r e d . This Court i n P o r t e r v . P o r t e r (1970), 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538, h e l d t h a t : ". . . a reviewing c o u r t is never j u s t i f i e d i n s u b s t i t u t i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I n determining whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e q u e s t i o n i s n o t whether t h e reviewing c o u r t a g r e e s w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t , b u t , r a t h e r , d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n act a r b i t r a r i l y without t h e em- ployment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment o r exceed t h e bounds of reason, i n view of a l l t h e circumstances, i g n o r i n g recognized p r i n c i p l e s r e s u l t i n g i n sub- s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e . " Here t h e District Court d i d n o t a c t a r b i t r a r i l y o r exceed t h e bounds of reason. The judgment a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. ! W e concur: