Title: CROMWELL v CROMWELL
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13711
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 1977

No. 13711 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 CARLEY R. CROMWELL, Petitioner and Appellant, GARDNER CROMWELL, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Larry Riley argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Mulroney, Delaney, Dalby and Mudd, Missoula, Montana Dexter L. Delaney argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: September 22, 1977 Filed : M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. Appellant Carley R. Cromwell brought t h i s action t o dissolve her marriage t o Gardner Cromwell, The cause was t r i e d before the Hon. E . Gardner Brownlee, d i s t r i c t judge, Missoula County, who on November 30, 1976, handed down a f i n a l decree, Appellant claimed the right t o receive a portion of the jointly acquired property of the parties, together with attorney fees and support. The court, having heard the evidence, decreed the marriage be dissolved and assets of the parties be divided i n t h i s manner: 1. To the petitioner, Carley Cromwell: a. The family home, together with a l l items of personal property contained therein. b. The parties' interest i n property located i n Hawaii. 2. To the respondent, Gardner Cromwell: a. The retirement and other pension benefits which he had b u i l t up during h i s years as a law professor a t the University of Montana. From t h i s property settlement Carley Cromwell appeals. The only issue on appeal is whether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n i t s property division and maintenance (alimony) award, A d i s t r i c t court has f a r reaching discretion in resolving property divisions, and its judgment w i l l not be altered unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion. Eschenburg v. Eschenburg, Mont . , 557 P.2d 1014, 33 St.Rep. 1198 (1976). I n Roe v. Roe, M o n t . , 556 P.2d 1246, 33 St.Rep. 863, 866 (1976), quoting from Porter v. Porter, 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538 (1970), t h i s Court stated: "'* * * I n determinirg whether the t r i a l court abused its discretion, the question i s not whether the reviewing court agrees with the t r i a l court, but, rather, did the t r i a l court i n the exercise of its discretion a c t a r b i t r a r i l y without the em- ployment.~£ conscientious judgment o r exceed the bounds of reason, in view of a l l the circumstances, ignoring recognized principles resulting i n sub- s t a n t i a l injustice. "' 33 St.Rep. 866. Section 48-321, R.C.M. 1947, of the Montana Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, provides in part: 'I* * * the court * * * s h a l l * * * equitably appor- tion between the parties the property and assets belonging t o e i t h e r o r both however and whenever acquired, and whether the t i t l e thereto is in the name of the husband or wife or both. I n making apportionment the court shall consider the duration of the marriage * * * the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational s k i l l s , employability, estate, l i a b i l i t i e s and the needs of each of the parties * * * and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income. The court s h a l l also consider the contribu- tion o r dissipation of value of the respective estates, and the contribution of a spouse as a home- maker or t o the family unit. * * * the court s h a l l consider those contributions of the other spouse t o the marriage, including the nonmone tary contribution of a homemaker * * *.I1 Section 48-322, R.C.M. 1947, provides the court may grant maintenance t o a spouse i f it finds the spouse seeking mainten- ance : a. Lacks sufficient property t o provide for her reason- able needs, and b. is unable t o support herself through appropriate employment. Section 48-322 further provides the maintenance order s h a l l be i n such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, and the court shall consider a l l relevant factors including: a. The financial resources of the party seeking mainten- ance, including marital property apportioned to her, and her a b i l i t y to meet her needs independently; b. The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training t o enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment; c. The standard of living established during the marriage; d. The duration of the marriage; e. The age, and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; and f. The a b i l i t y of the spouse from w h o m maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance. It is important here to review what transpired a t the d i s t r i c t court level. There had been an agreed property settle- ment submitted to the court. The d i s t r i c t court judge from the beginning told the parties that he did not believe i n alimony. Counsel for Carley Cromwell pointed out to the judge that i n making a reasonable division of the assets, there had to be a recognition that the most valuable asset of the marriage was the job, education and training of Gardner Cromwell. The court replied there was no reason why Carley Cromwell could not use her training as a nurse and went on to state he was not going t o give her the right t o have any money from her husband. Carley Cromwell tried to amend her petition under Rule 34, Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, to increase the amount of alimony which she was asking. I n response t o t h i s attempt t o amend, the judge stated: "I don't know what type of testimony you want t o put in, I have already told you a s a matter of law that I a m not interested i n alimony. I ' m going t o t r y t o adjust it some other way. I f I do make an Order, it w i l l not be alimony, it w i l l be that the Property Settlement Agreement is short by exact number of dollars that the wife should receive from the husband * * *. That' s the way I intend t o do it. N o w apparently you are not satisfied with m y belief on t h i s point so there is going t o be an appeal. I suggest we have the shortest record possible so that you can appeal on whether o r not t h i s interpretation on the law on m y part is proper o r not. I t It is readily apparent from the d i s t r i c t court record that the t r i a l court judge i n h i s exercise of discretion over the property settlement abused h i s discretion when he ignored the mandates contained i n sections 48-321 and 48-322, R.C.M. 1947, and that the record reveals he refused t o con- sider the needs of appellant for some financial assistance during the transition from housewife t o a single person. The judgment of dissolution of marriage is affirmed. The judgment pertaining t o the property settlement of the parties i s reversed and remanded for a proper hearing t o de- termine property division, taking into account the appropriate law. In view of the length of time that Carley Cromell has gone with no support, it is further ordered the d i s t r i c t court hold a hearing on temporary support within a period of 30 days a f t e r remittitur issues and i n the event t h i s has not been done within the time s e t forth, it i s hereby ordered that Carley Cromell s h a l l be awarded the sum of $500 per month a s tem- porary support from date of remittitur and s h a l l continue u n t i l a reasonable amount has been established by the d i s t r i c t court. - 5 - Remittitur shall issue immediately with this Opinion. / u s t ice We Concur: f 1 , I , / . - ' - - i ,/ x: < . * d . Chief Justice