Title: MARRIAGE OF D C v M C
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-214
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 25, 1981

No. 81-214 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1981 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F D.C.', P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, M.C.. , Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Jones Law Firm, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Lynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d , Schoppert & Skaggs, B i l l i n g s , Montana Terry L. S e i f f e r t , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : September 3 , 1981 Decided: November 25, 1981 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . The marriage of D.C. ( t h e husband) and M.C. ( t h e wife) w a s dissolved i n January 1981 i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, Montana. M.C. appeals from t h e portions of the decree r e l a t i v e t o property d i s p o s i t i o n , maintenance and a t t o r n e y f e e s . W e r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n regard t o a l l t h r e e of those p o r t i o n s of the decree. The p a r t i e s were married i n 1960. Three c h i l d r e n were born t o them. A t t h e time of the t r i a l , only one of t h e c h i l d r e n was a minor, and she was 17 years of age. The husband was 44 years of age and t h e wife w a s 4 0 years of age when t h e t r i a l was had. The property of t h e couple c o n s i s t e d of t h e family home and i t s furnishings, t h e p a r t i e s ' personal e f f e c t s , and two o l d and u n r e l i a b l e automobiles. The husband has been employed by t h e Western Union Telegraph Company s i n c e 1960 and expects t o remain with t h a t company u n t i l retirement. H i s gross income a t t h e time of t r i a l was s l i g h t l y i n excess of $20,000 per year. The wife did n o t graduate from high school. She had no o u t s i d e employment during t h e marriage. The w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e marriage consisted of r a i s i n g t h e c h i l d r e n , cooking and cleaning. The testimony revealed t h a t t h e w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n diminished during t h e course of t h e marriage, primarily because of mental problems. The husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t within a few weeks of t h e i r marriage it became evident t h a t h i s wife was incapable of doing t h e shopping and bringing home t h e g r o c e r i e s . Early i n t h e marriage the husband observed t h a t h i s wife had a mental d i s o r d e r which l i m i t e d her a b i l i t y t o function normally. Unfortunately, it was n o t u n t i l t h e t i m e of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , n e a r l y 20 years l a t e r , t h a t t h e wife w a s f i r s t brought t o a p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r diagnosis and treatment. The w i f e ' s p s y c h i a t r i c and psychological r e p o r t s were entered i n evidence i n l i e u of d i r e c t testimony by t h e wife. The c o n t e n t of those r e p o r t s i s p e r t i n e n t t o our r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s case. M.C.'s psychologist reported t h a t M.C. was s u f f e r i n g from "a severe emotional disturbance diagnosed as schizophrenic r e a c t i o n , chronic u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d type." The psychologist's c l i n i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e e f f e c t s of t h i s d i s o r d e r i s t h a t M.C. has "decreased coping s k i l l s , l i m i t e d i n t e l l e c t u a l problem-solving c a p a b i l i t i e s , " and has experienced "withdrawal from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e world of everyday events, and withdrawal from meaningful i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . " The psychologist found t h a t M.C. " i s functioning a t a borderline l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . However, t h i s i s n o t a consequence of l i m i t e d i n - t e l l e c t u a l resources, b u t i s more a func- t i o n of her severe emotional withdrawal during r e c e n t years. This person i s a chronic emotionally disturbed i n d i v i d u a l who has n o t p a r t i c i p a t e d meaningfully i n t h e everyday events of t h e world around her during r e c e n t years. A s a consequence, t h e r e has been a sharp d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning because of d i s - use." The psychologist found M.C. t o be i n t h e bottom t e n per c e n t of t h e general population i n t e l l e c t u a l l y . Most important f o r our purposes, M.C. was found t o be "disabled a s f a r a s her a b i l i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e competitive job market. " The prospects f o r an improvement i n her condition do not appear good. "The prognosis f o r a chronic u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d schizophrenic r e a c t i o n i s very guarded. The likelihood t h a t t h i s woman would b e n e f i t from professional psychotherapy i s low." The r e p o r t recommended t h a t M.C. "should be provided a s s i s t a n c e through some public f a c i l i t y , such as [ t h e ] Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. " I t appears t h a t vocational r e h a b i l i t a t i o n would serve a s therapy r a t h e r than preparation f o r employment: " I f she i s given help i n t h e form of employment a s s i s t a n c e , she should be required t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n job functions i n a meaningful way i n order t o r e c e i v e her check." F i n a l l y , t h e r e p o r t advised t h a t M.C. would a l s o need a s s i s t a n c e from t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i v e Services i n t h e form of b a s i c l i f e s k i l l s t r a i n i n g . The D i s t r i c t Court must consider a number of f a c t o r s i n a r r i v i n g a t a d i s p o s i t i o n of property i n a d i s s o l u t i o n proceeding. Among these f a c t o r s a r e : t h e duration of t h e marriage; t h e age, h e a l t h , occupation, vocational s k i l l s , e s t a t e , l i a b i l i t i e s , employability, amount and sources of income and needs of each of t h e p a r t i e s ; whether t h e property d i s p o s i t i o n i s i n l i e u of o r i n a d d i t i o n t o maintenance; and t h e opportunity of each f o r f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l a s s e t s and income. Section 40-4-202, MCA. Before a c o u r t can award maintenance i n a d i s s o l u t i o n proceeding, t h e r e must be a finding t h a t t h e spouse seeking maintenance l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t property t o provide f o r h i s reasonable needs and t h a t t h e spouse i s unable t o support himself through appropriate employment. Section 40-4-203(1), MCA. I f maintenance i s t o be awarded, t h e amount and d u r a t i o n of the award i s determined by considering: t h e f i n a n c i a l resources of the p a r t y seeking maintenance, including m a r i t a l property apportioned t o him and h i s a b i l i t y t o meet h i s needs independently; t h e time necessary t o acquire s u f f i c i e n t education o r t r a i n i n g t o enable t h e p a r t y seeking maintenance t o f i n d appropriate employment; t h e standard of l i v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d during the marriage; t h e duration of t h e marriage; t h e age and t h e physical and emotional condition of t h e spouse seeking maintenance; and t h e a b i l i t y of t h e spouse from whom maintenance i s sought t o m e e t h i s needs while meeting those of t h e spouse seeking maintenance. Section 40-4-203(2), MCA. The decree of d i s s o l u t i o n i n t h e case before us made t h r e e a l l o c a t i o n s t o t h e wife. F i r s t , t h e husband was ordered t o provide medical insurance f o r t h e wife v i a a b a s i c medical policy and a major medical policy. The t o t a l monthly premiums f o r t h e p o l i c i e s was $62.82 a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l . There i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e record of t h e amount t h a t these p o l i c i e s provide f o r p s y c h i a t r i c treatment. Second, t h e wife was awarded a p o r t i o n of t h e f u r n i t u r e and household items. Third, t h e wife was t o be given 50 p e r c e n t of t h e n e t proceeds of t h e s a l e of t h e family home, a f t e r deduction of c l o s i n g c o s t s , r e a l e s t a t e f e e s , f e e s of t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y and her guardian ad l i t e m , a home improve- ment loan, t h e c o s t of t h e w i f e ' s p r e t r i a l p s y c h i a t r i c examinations, c a p i t a l gains taxes, and a l l o t h e r taxes, l i e n s o r encumbrances on t h e home. The w i f e ' s cash award from t h e s a l e of t h e home, a f t e r a l l deductions, would be less than $25,000 without consideration of p o t e n t i a l income taxes. This sum w a s t o be p u t i n a t r u s t fund, t h e proceeds of which w e r e t o provide f o r t h e c a r e , support and maintenance of t h e wife. I n her appeal, the wife argues t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d by: (1) r e q u i r i n g one-half of t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be paid o u t of t h e proceeds of t h e s a l e of t h e home; ( 2 ) n o t awarding maintenance t o the wife; and (3) not awarding t h e wife a l a r g e r share of the proceeds of t h e s a l e of t h e house. The ~ i s t r i c t Court based i t s determination of t h e f i n a n c i a l a s p e c t s of t h i s case upon f a c t u a l considerations which a r e n o t always supported by the record. The c o u r t noted t h a t t h e husband had two outstanding d e b t s which would n o t be extinguished by t h e s a l e of t h e house. The c o u r t a l s o noted t h a t t h e couple's t h r e e c h i l d r e n were s t i l l r e s i d i n g a t home. Without elaboration, t h e c o u r t found t h a t it was reasonable t o assume t h a t t h e husband would continue t o c a r r y t h e f i n a n c i a l burden of being a p a r e n t beyond t h e d a t e of t h e c h i l d r e n ' s majority. The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o found t h a t the husband was not f i n a n c i a l l y a b l e t o pay maintenance t o t h e wife o t h e r than providing medical insurance, and t h a t t h e only means of providing f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e wife was from her 50% of the e q u i t y i n t h e family home. The t o t a l o b l i g a t i o n owing under t h e two debts mentioned above was only $1,325.88, an amount t h a t would be paid o f f i n t h e near future. The record does r e v e a l t h a t t h e husband had a d e s i r e t o continue t o a i d h i s c h i l d r e n beyond t h e t i m e when the law r e q u i r e s such a i d from him. However, w e f i n d nothing i n t h e law which transmutes p a r e n t a l generosity i n t o an o b l i g a t i o n which r e l i e v e s a spouse from a p o t e n t i a l duty t o provide maintenance i n a d i s s o l u t i o n a c t i o n . The c o u r t found t h a t t h e wife was " s u f f e r i n g from a severe emotional psychological disturbance." The c o u r t a l s o found, i n a mild understatement, t h a t t h e wife "may experience d i f f i c u l t y i n obtaining and keeping any type of employment." And, even though t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h e wife w i l l need psychological h e a l t h c a r e treatment i n t h e f u t u r e , and t h a t her minimum l i v i n g expenses would be $600.00 per month, t h e c o u r t ' s decree r e q u i r e s t h i s 40 year o l d woman t o l i v e o f f of a t r u s t with a p r i n c i p a l of less than $25,000.00. I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e income from t h e t r u s t could n o t meet t h e $600.00 per month minimum l i v i n g expenses of t h e wife. I f p r i n c i p a l i s used t o meet her needs, t h e t r u s t soon would be exhausted. This Court has held under f a c t s s i m i l a r t o those i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h a t i f t h e e f f e c t of n o t awarding maintenance i s t o make a spouse a ward of t h e s t a t e , maintenance should be awarded i f possible. Stenberg v. Stenberg (1973), 161 Mont. 164, 505 P.2d 1 1 0 . That holding i s applicable i n t h i s case notwithstanding t h e adoption of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act i n 1975. The record shows t h a t t h e wife has no employment s k i l l s , and i n a d d i t i o n , her psychological, emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l condition a r e such a s t o prevent her from being employed i n t h e foreseeable f u t u r e . The record does n o t show t h a t t h e wife has any o t h e r sources of income o r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l a s s e t s i n t h e f u t u r e . The provisions of t h e decree, including t h e proposed t r u s t , a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o provide f o r t h e reasonable needs of t h e wife. Unless t h e r e i s a change i n t h e decree, it i s apparent t h a t t h e wife w i l l become a ward of t h e government i n a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t t i m e . This i s inappropriate where she was t h e wife of D.C. f o r 20 years. W e reverse those p o r t i o n s of t h e decree r e l a t i v e t o a t t o r n e y f e e s , property d i s p o s i t i o n and maintenance. I n view of t h e l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l resources of t h e wife, w e f i n d t h a t an award should be made t o t h e wife of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , both a t t r i a l and on t h i s appeal, with such items t o be paid by t h e husband. Section 40-4-110, MCA. The cause i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court with the following i n s t r u c t i o n s : 1) Determine t h e w i f e ' s reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , both a t t r i a l and on appeal; 2) Re-examine t h e property d i s p o s i t i o n and determine a d i s p o s i t i o n which w i l l m e e t t h e reasonable needs of t h e wife; 3 ) Based upon t h e apparent need f o r l i f e t i m e maintenance, determine t h e reasonable amount of maintenance t o be paid by t h e husband t o t h e wife, with t h e award t o be f l e x i b l e enough t o provide f o r t h e needs of both p a r t i e s a s t h e i r economic s i t u a t i o n s change; 4 ) Consider t h e comparative needs of t h e husband and wife and determine i f it i s reasonably p o s s i b l e t o extend t h e maintenance provisions beyond t h e r e t i r e m e n t o r death of t h e husband. Section 40-4-208 ( 4 ) , MCA. Reversed and remanded. W e Concur: p e 8 . v w , t A A q Chief J u s t l c e