Title: MARRIAGE OF CHEREWICK
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-515
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 13, 1983

No. 82-515 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F PATRICIA McCONNELL-CHEREWICK, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs- T H O M A S ANDREW CHEREWICK, 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 Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: W. Corbin Howard, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Davidson, Veeder, Baugh, Broeder, Poppler & Michelotti; Doris M. Poppler, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : A p r i l 15, 1983 Decided: J u l y 13, 1983 Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Thomas Andrew Cherewick, t h e husband i n a d i s s o l u t i o n proceeding, a p p e a l s from a f i n a l d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n g r a n t i n g custody of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e wife, P a t r i c i a McConnell-Cherewick, and an o r d e r denying Thomas's motion f o r a new t r i a l and amendment of t h e f i n d - i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Y e l l o w s t o n e County. The p a r t i e s were married on J u n e 1 5 , 1974. P a t r i c i a was 22 y e a r s of age, Thomas was 27. One c h i l d , T i f f a n y , was born of t h e marriage on August 6, 1980. Both p a r t i e s a r e w e l l educated and pursuing c a r e e r s . A f t e r t h e c h i l d was born, P a t r i c i a remained a t home f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e . T h e r e a f t e r , P a t r i c i a took T i f f a n y t o work w i t h her f o r about s i x months b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s p l a c e d h e r i n a day c a r e c e n t e r . The primary c a r e of t h e c h i l d remained w i t h P a t r i c i a u n t i l s h e moved from t h e f a m i l y home. The p a r t i e s t h e n shared c a r e of T i f f a n y u n t i l a p s y c h i a t r i s t , Marian Martin, recommended t h a t Thomas r e t a i n p r i m a r y c a r e a n d a l l o w P a t r i c i a v i s i t a t i o n u n t i l completion of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n proceeding . A f t e r a h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d custody of T i f f a n y t o P a t r i c i a and allowed Thomas r e a s o n a b l e l i b e r a l v i s i t a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court r e f u s e d t o a l l o w j o i n t custody because of t h e h o s t i l i t y t h a t had developed between t h e p a r t i e s . The D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d t h e f i n a l d e c r e e on August 12, 1982. Thomas f i l e d a combined motion f o r new t r i a l and f o r amendment of t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclu- s i o n s of law. Thomas's motion was heard and deemed denied by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o a c t . Thomas f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l . W e a f f i r m t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n a l l r e s p e c t s . The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e a r e : 1. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o admit i n t o evidence Thomas's proposed e x h i b i t " N , " a l e t t e r from P a t r i c i a t o her f a t h e r . 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t a new t r i a l o r amend its f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclu- s i o n s of law upon t h e ground of newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . 3 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n awarding c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s t o P a t r i c i a . The f i r s t i s s u e is whether t h e District Court p r o p e r l y excluded Thomas's proposed e x h i b i t " N , " a l e t t e r w r i t t e n by P a t r i c i a t o h e r f a t h e r . The l e t t e r was a p r i v a t e communica- t i o n . There is no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e l e t t e r was completed o r s e n t . Thomas found t h e l e t t e r and photocopied it f o r u s e a t a l a t e r d a t e . Thomas o b j e c t s t o t h e s t a t e m e n t i n t h e l e t t e r t h a t , "My lawyer is i n c a h o o t s w i t h t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t - They a r e s e t t i n g Tom up v e r y smart- They w i l l make m e look s u p e r good." The D i s t r i c t Court o r i g i n a l l y excluded t h e e x h i b i t a s i r r e l e v a n t and l a t e r excluded it when used t o impeach t h e w i t n e s s . Thomas contends t h e e x h i b i t c o n t r a d i c t s P a t r i c i a ' s testimony a t t h e h e a r i n g and had b e a r i n g on her c r e d i b i l i t y . Rule 401, Mont.R.Evid., p r o v i d e s : "Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e of any f a c t t h a t is of consequence t o t h e d e t e r - m i n a t i o n of t h e a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e t h a n it would be w i t h o u t t h e evidence. Relevant e v i d e n c e may in- c l u d e e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g upon t h e c r e d i b i l - i t y o f a w i t n e s s o r h e a r s a y d e c l a r a n t . " The t e s t o f r e l e v a n c e is: ". . . whether an item of e v i d e n c e w i l l have any v a l u e , a s determined by l o g i c and e x p e r i e n c e , i n proving t h e p r o p o s i - t i o n f o r which it is o f f e r e d . The s t a n - d a r d u s e d t o m e a s u r e t h i s a c c e p t a b l e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e is 'any tendency t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e of any f a c t . . . more p r o b a b l e o r less p r o b a b l e t h a n it would be w i t h o u t t h e evidence. ' I 1 S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Nont . , 606 P.2d 1343, 1354, 37 St.Rep. 194, 207. The D i s t r i c t Court h a s broad d i s c r e t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t t h e e v i d e n c e is r e l e v a n t . Without a showing t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court h a s abused its d i s c r e t i o n , t h i s Court w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e District C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of relevancy. S t a t e v. C l o s e ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. , 623 P.2d 940, 38 St.Rep. 177. The l e t t e r was a p r i v a t e communication t h a t was n o t completed o r d e l i v e r e d t o t h e i n t e n d e d r e c e i v e r . The D i s - t r i c t Court allowed P a t r i c i a t o t e s t i f y a s t o t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e l e t t e r . The Court had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o see t h e w i t n e s s and d e t e r m i n e whether t h e e v i d e n c e was r e l e v a n t a s t o t h e t r u t h of t h e s t a t e m e n t s made and h e r c r e d i b i l i t y . W e f i n d no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n e x c l u d i n g t h e evidence. The second i s s u e is whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t a new t r i a l o r amend i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law upon t h e ground of newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence. Thomas a s s e r t s t h e newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence is t h e evidence t h a t P a t r i c i a ' s back y a r d is n o t fenced and is bounded by a d i t c h . There was evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g t h a t P a t r i c i a l i v e d w i t h a n o t h e r woman who had two c h i l d r e n . The c h i l d r e n g o t along w e l l and enjoyed each o t h e r ' s company. They were l i v i n g i n a l a r g e house a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g . Thomas p r e s e n t s no evidence t o show t h a t T i f f a n y and P a t r i c i a have moved froin t h i s home. The evidence of whether t h e yard was fenced was a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g : "Q. What type of yard d o e s your p r e s e n t home h a v e ? A. [ P a t r i c i a ] W e h a v e approximately a h a l f a c r e . I t ' s enclosed with a f e n c e on one s i d e , a hedge is on t h e o t h e r s i d e . And I t a k e v e r y good t o watch her when w e a r e o u t s i d e . There is a swing, a l s o , i n t h e back f o r h e r . " W e have s t a t e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a new t r i a l is j u s t i f i e d : "1. The a l l e g e d 'newly d i s c o v e r e d ' e v i - dence came t o h i s knowledge a f t e r t h e t r i a l ; "2. I t was n o t a want of d i l i g e n c e which precluded its e a r l i e r d i s c o v e r y ; "3. The m a t e r i a l i t y of t h e evidence is s o g r e a t it would probably produce a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t on r e t r i a l ; and, "4. The a l l e g e d 'new e v i d e n c e ' is n o t merely cumulative, n o t t e n d i n g o n l y t o impeach o r d i s c r e d i t w i t n e s s e s i n t h e c a s e . " K a r t e s v. K a r t e s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 Mont. 210, 214-215, 573 P.2d 191, 194. With regard t o P a t r i c i a ' s y a r d , it is c l e a r t h a t t h e evidence was a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and could have been a s c e r t a i n e d through s i m p l e d i s c o v e r y . I n f a c t , P a t r i c i a t e s t i f i e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e yard was n o t completely fenced. No o t h e r evidence was p r e s e n t e d showing t h a t t h e yard was fenced. While t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d s t a t e t h a t t h e yard was f e n c e d , t h i s o v e r s i g h t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t t o w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l . T h e r e f o r e , t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h i s "discovery" w a r r a n t s a new t r i a l is w i t h o u t m e r i t . Thomas a d d i t i o n a l l y a s s e r t s t h a t a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g on August 2 , 1982, P a t r i c i a took T i f f a n y from t n e day c a r e c e n t e r f o r a day. Because of t h i s e'vidence, Thomas a s s e r t s he is e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l because P a t r i c i a was n o t co- o p e r a t i n g with t h e planned schedule. Again, we do n o t f i n d t h i s evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a new t r i a l . F u r t h e r - more, t h e District Court d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h a v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e u n t i l August 1 0 , 1982. Thomas a d m i t s t h a t he was informed by t h e couple who manage t h e day c a r e c e n t e r t h a t T i f f a n y was with her mother. H e t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t f e a r f o r her s a f e t y . There is no m e r i t t o t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h i s "newly discovered" evidence j u s t i f i e s a new t r i a l . Thomas f i n a l l y a r g u e s t h a t a new t r i a l was j u s t i f i e d by t h e f a c t t h a t D r . Joseph Rich, a p s y c h i a t r i s t who had c o u n s e l l e d both p a r t i e s p r i o r t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e i r m a r r i a g e , decided t o t e s t i f y . D r . Rich r e f u s e d t o t e s t i f y a t t h e o r i g i n a l h e a r i n g because t h e p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d by Rich i n c o u n s e l i n g would n o t be used i n c o u r t . However, he was l a t e r w i l l i n g t o t e s t i f y about c o u n s e l i n g s e s s i o n s he had had a l o n e w i t h Thomas and t o s t a t e h i s o b j e c t i o n s a b o u t M a r i a n M a r t i n ' s s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g Thomas's anger. Dr. Rich was a v a i l a b l e a t t h e time of t r i a l and could have been subpoenaed by Thomas. The evidence d i d n o t come t o t h e knowledge of Thomas a f t e r t h e t r i a l and t h e r e was want of d i l i g e n c e by Thomas a s t o t h e testimony of Rich. The m a t e r i a l i t y of t h e evidence was n o t s o g r e a t a s t o produce a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. T h e r e f o r e , w e a r e n o t persuaded by t h i s argument. The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse its d i s c r e t i o n by denying Thomas a new t r i a l . F u r t h e r m o r e , w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , we do n o t f i n d t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court on t h i s "newly d i s c o v e r e d " evidence t o be c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. The t h i r d i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g c u s t o d y of T i f f a n y t o P a t r i c i a . Thomas c o n t e n d s t h e District C o u r t f a i l e d t o s e t f o r t h a l l t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-212(3), ( 4 ) , MCA. S e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA, p r o v i d e s : " B e s t i n t e r e s t of c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y i n accordance w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g : "(1) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s a s t o h i s custody; " ( 2 ) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d a s t o h i s c u s t o d i a n ; " ( 3 ) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n - s h i p of t h e c h i l d w i t h h i s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s , h i s s i b l i n g s , and a n y o t h e r person who may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t ; " ( 4 ) t h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t t o h i s home, s c h o o l , and community; and " ( 5 ) t h e mental and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved." Thomas a s s e r t s t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o make t h e n e c e s s a r y f i n d i n g s by " i g n o r i n g " e v i d e n c e he had s u b m i t t e d . H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court made no f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p a r t i e s . He f u r t h e r a s s e r t s t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o make t h e n e c e s s a r y f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g T i f f a n y ' s a d j u s t m e n t t o h e r home and community. The D i s t r i c t Court found: "The Court h a s c o n s i d e r e d a l l a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t o r s on c u s t o d y a s f o l l o w s : "1. Both p a r t i e s seek s o l e custody. "2. From the evidence, it is apparent that the child is well-adjusted and although experiencing the stress of her parents' separation and divorce, is developing normally. "3. All parties enjoy excellent mental and physical health. However, Dr. Marian Martin recommends that both parties seek counseling and take a 'parenting course'. "That it would be in the best interests of the minor child of the parties to be placed in the care, custody and control of the petitioner and that respondent have reasonable liberal rights of visita- tion. The Court bases this finding upon the fact that joint custody works only if the parties are able to communicate freely and work well together, and share the responsibilities without rancor. Testimony of the parties and observed open hostility of the parties in the courtroom raises doubt that the parties can agree on substantial matters well enough for joint custody to work well, and the age of the child is such that one domicile would give her more security emotionally. The testimony of the parties does not indicate that respondent shared child-rearing responsibilities and home- maker duties equally with petitioner. It is clear that petitioner bore those responsibilities prior to the separation. The testimony further showed that the present living arrangements of the peti- tioner are more desirable for a young female child as testimony showed the family home is located in a remote sec- tion of the city, with no near neighbors or children to play with, that the home does not have a yard or fenced enclosure for her to play in and that petitioner's home is well suited for the needs of the child, with a large fenced yard, and other children nearby. "Although Dr. Martin's recommendation was to place primary custody with the father, testimony was clear that the father was rather inflexible in allowing the mother frequent visitation and that the father sometimes has used the child's visitation as an outlet for his bitterness and hostility toward the mother for divorcing him. Dr. Taylor testified that most of the five counseling sessions had dealt with respondent's bitterness toward peti- tioner and had to be directed toward his relationship with the child. Petitioner t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e would c o o p e r a t e f u l l y w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s c u s t o d i a l arrangements i f s h e were g i v e n custody. Witness Diane G i r a r d o t t e s t i f i e d of h e r p e r s o n a l obser- v a t i o n o f p e t i t i o n e r ' s c h i l d - r e a r i n g a b i l i t i e s and t h e home environment and t h a t same was e x c e l l e n t . " The f u n c t i o n of t h i s Court i n reviewing f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n a c i v i l a c t i o n t r i e d by t h e District Court w i t h o u t a j u r y is n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e its judgment i n p l a c e of t h e t r i e r of f a c t s b u t r a t h e r is c o n f i n e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Cameron & J e n k i n s v. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 219, 587 P.2d 939. Each p a r t y had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t evidence. S e v e r a l e x p e r t s and f r i e n d s were c a l l e d and t h e D i s t r i c t Court h e a r d e x t e n s i v e testimony on both s i d e s . The District Court had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o view t h e w i t n e s s e s and e v a l u a t e t h e i r testimony. The D i s t r i c t Court is n o t o b l i g a t e d t o o u t l i n e a l l of t h e testmony p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l i n its f i n d i n g s of f a c t . The D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y supported its c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . There was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is a f f i r m e d . W e concur: