Title: MARRIAGE OF MCDONALD v MCDONALD
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14419
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 5, 1979

No. 14419 I N THE S U P F ! E N J 3 C O W O F T H E STATE O F M3WANA 1979 IN R E THE MARRIAGE O F JANET M. McENlLD, Petitioner and Respondent, -VS- CHRISrOPHER J . m D O N A L D , Respondent and Appellant. Appeal frcnn: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Ftemrd: For A p ~ l l a n t : Dave B. Kinnard, Billings, Mxkana For Respondent: Gary Beiswanger, Billings, mntana Suhitted on briefs: M a y 9, 1979 Decided: SEF - 5 1979 Filed: S t f +. 1q9 M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an appeal by t h e f a t h e r from two o r d e r s of t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court, one which refused t o modify a divorce settlement and decree placing custody i n t h e mother, and t h e second from an o r d e r awarding t h e mother a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s generated from her defense of t h e f a t h e r ' s modification p e t i t i o n . The appeal from t h e December 22, 1977 o r d e r i s dismissed a s it came a f t e r t h e f i l i n g deadline; however, t h e o r d e r granting a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e mother is reversed because t h e time had expired within which t h e mother had a duty t o a c t . O n January 5, 1976, t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court entered a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n which incorporated a separation agreement expressing t h e p a r t i e s ' d e s i r e t o g i v e t h e mother custody of t h e i r two minor c h i l d r e n , subject t o v i s i t a t i o n by t h e f a t h e r . However, on August 17, 1977, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r modification of t h e p r i o r d i s s o l u t i o n decree and a l l e g e d t h a t custody of t h e c h i l d r e n should be t r a n s f e r r e d t o him. I n an order f i l e d December 2 2 , 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n , f i n d i n g t h a t he had n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 40-4-219, MCA, and t h e r e f o r e could n o t modify t h e o r i g i n a l decree. The o r d e r a l s o provided t h a t both p a r t i e s should bear t h e i r own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y fees. Notice of e n t r y of t h e order was f i l e d on December 3 0 , 1977. It was not u n t i l f i v e months l a t e r t h a t a n o t i c e of appeal was f i l e d . Almost t h r e e months a f t e r t h e order denying modification, t h e mother f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r an order r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o pay a reasonable amount f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s incurred by t h e mother i n defending a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r ' s modification p e t i t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r granting t h e mother's p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d May 17, 1978. O n May 26, 1978, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal, appealing n o t only from t h e order r e l a t i n g t o a t t o r n e y f e e s , but a l s o from t h e December 1977 order denying h i s p e t i t i o n f o r modification of custody. Clearly, w e cannot determine t h e appeal i n r e l a t i o n t o modification of custody; but j u s t a s c l e a r l y , w e must r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n its decision awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , f o r t h e time period had long expired. Rule 5, Mont.R.App.Civ.P., provides t h a t appeal from an order must be taken within t h i r t y days of its e n t r y except t h a t i n cases where s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e of e n t r y i s required, t h e time f o r appeal s h a l l be t h i r t y days from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment. Here, s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r was made on December 30, 1977. The f a t h e r f i l e d h i s appeal of t h i s order on May 26, 1978, and t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e t h i r t y day t i m e l i m i t deprived t h i s Court of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s appeal. The mother's l a t e r p e t i t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s , under t h e circumstances here, d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e t h i r t y day l i m i t a t i o n f o r f i l i n g an appeal. The D i s t r i c t Court's December 22, 1977 order denying t h e f a t h e r ' s modification p e t i t i o n provided i n p a r t t h a t both p a r t i e s w e r e t o bear t h e i r own attorney f e e s and c o s t s . But almost t h r e e months l a t e r , on March 17, 1978, t h e mother p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an order r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o pay a reasonable amount f o r t h e c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s incurred by her i n defense o f t h e modification a c t i o n f i l e d by t h e f a t h e r . O n May 17, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court f i l e d an o r d e r based on s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, which required t h e f a t h e r t o pay t h e sums of $1,491 t o t h e mother's a t t o r n e y and $1,000 d i r e c t l y t o t h e mother. Clearly, t h e D i s t r i c t Court had no such a u t h o r i t y . Rule 5 9 ( g ) , M0nt.R.Civ.P. provides: "A motion t o a l t e r o r amend t h e judgment s h a l l be served not l a t e r than 10 days a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e of t h e n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of judgment. . ." This r u l e a p p l i e s t o p e t i t i o n s f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s f i l e d a f t e r e n t r y of judgment. Stacy v. W i l l i a m s (1970), 50 F.R.D. 52 (construing Rule 59 (e) , Fed.R.~iv.P., which is i d e n t i c a l i n content t o Rule 5 9 ( g ) , M0nt.R.Civ.P.); Lichtenstein v. Lichtenstein (1972), 55 F.R.D. 535 (construing Rule 59 ( e ) , Fed. R.Civ.P. ) ; see a l s o M & R Construction Co. v. Shea (19791, Mont . , 589 P.2d 138, 36 St.Rep. 37 I ( t h i s Court applied Rule 59 (g) t o a motion t o s t r i k e judgment f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s ) . Proper a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e r u l e s c l e a r l y prohibited g r a n t i n g of t h e requested r e l i e f t o t h e mother i n t h i s case. Notice of e n t r y of t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r r e q u i r i n g both p a r t i e s t o bear t h e i r own c o s t s and attorney f e e s was served on t h e f a t h e r on December 3 0 , 1977. Having f a i l e d t o f i l e h e r p e t i t i o n f o r c o s t s and attorney f e e s within t e n days of s e r v i c e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court was without j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g i v e t h e mother t h e requested r e l i e f . Though t h e r e l i e f granted i n t h e f a c e of t h e e x i s t i n g procedural r u l e s is highly unusual, t h e t r i a l court d i d not bother t o explain t h e b a s i s of i t s decision t o grant t h e requested r e l i e f t o t h e mother. I t i s highly unlikely t h a t an appeal would have r e s u l t e d had t h e t r i a l court properly applied t h e r u l e s of c i v i l procedure t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , f i l e d t h r e e months a f t e r e n t r y of t h e f i n a l order. By not appealing t h e December 2 2 , 1977 order denying t h e p e t i t i o n t o modify custody, t h e f a t h e r had obviously decided t o forego an appeal. But t h r e e months l a t e r , he was faced with t h e mother's p e t i t i o n t o award her a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s incurred a s a r e s u l t of defending t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o modify custody. The D i s t r i c t Court had unequivocally r u l e d t h a t both p a r t i e s were t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . The mother could have p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court, within t h e procedural time l i m i t s , t o reconsider t h a t r u l i n g , o r could have appealed t h a t r u l i n g within t h i r t y days, but d i d n e i t h e r . The D i s t r i c t Court's r u l i n g granting t h e mother's p e t i t i o n compelled t h e f a t h e r t o appeal unless he could persuade t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o change i t s order g r a n t i n g attorney f e e s and c o s t s t o t h e mother. W e recognize, of course, t h e r i g h t of t h e f a t h e r under t h e r u l e s of c i v i l procedure t o appeal from t h e D i s t r i c t Court order without f i r s t p e t i t i o n i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r . But t h i s i s not t o say t h a t w e encourage such d i r e c t appeals. The f a t h e r could have f i l e d a motion requesting t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t i t s order. I f it had been done, and i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d c o r r e c t i t s e r r o r , it i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e mother would have appealed. Moreover, i f she had appealed, being t h a t her p o s i t i o n obviously had no foundation i n t h e law, it could w e l l have been c l a s s i f i e d by t h i s Court a s f r i v o l o u s under Rule 32, Mont.R.App.Civ.P., with appropriate sanctions being t h e r e s u l t . Furthermore, i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e f a t h e r ' s motion t o c o r r e c t such a p a t e n t e r r o r , nothing would have been l o s t . Conceivably, the District Court would even have explained the basis for its ruling granting the mother's motion. But turning solely to the patently erroneous ruling of the District Court, an appeal was in order. This being so, the father undoubtedly thought he had nothing to lose by also requesting this Court to review on the merits, the original decision of the District Court denying his petition to modify the custody decree. A more careful and conscientious application of the rules by the trial courts, and a more careful analysis by the lawyers of the procedural options available to correct errors of the trial courts, will undoubtedly benefit the court system, and save much time and money for the parties involved, an objective which lawyers should not lose sight of. For the above reasons, the father's appeal from the District Court order of December 22, 1977 denying custody modification is dismissed. This Court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. On the other hand, the District Court order of May 17, 1977, granting attorney fees and costs to the mother is reversed--the District Court had lost juris- diction to enter the order. , ; F h i e f Justic A