Court Opinion

ID: 9847325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:57:53.476555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:07.356189
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Before reaching the substantive legal issues raised by this appeal, there are several procedural problems which must be addressed. While the majority’s statement of facts recognizes some of them, it fails to recognize the consequence of procedural problems and, as a result, the majority opinion, I believe, is seriously flawed.
On February 4, 1982, the magistrate entered his findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree of divorce in this matter. In that decree he purported to retain jurisdiction for six months in the event that the United States Congress completed action on pending legislation which would have reversed the decision of the United States Supreme Court in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981). As the majority points out, both parties appealed from that decision of the magistrate to the district court. However, the majority avoids the serious question of whether or not the magistrate could retain jurisdiction after the otherwise final judgment was rendered. Considering all of the procedural problems found in this case, the majority’s desire to avoid that difficult question is understandable. Suffice it to say that if the court did have the power to retain jurisdiction, the judgment was not final, and this whole appeal process should never have occurred.1
Despite the magistrate’s retention of jurisdiction, the district court accepted jurisdiction of the appeal. While the appeal was pending in the district court Congress enacted the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act, 96 Stat. 730 (1982). Acting pursuant to the previously retained jurisdiction, the magistrate, on February 3, 1983, amended his memorandum decision to award the wife 11% of the husband’s “disposable retirement pay." Even assuming that he had the authority to retain jurisdiction in the first instance, the magistrate clearly had no jurisdiction to alter his previously rendered decision while the case was pending on appeal in the district court. Our cases and our rules are clear that, once an appeal is taken, the trial court loses jurisdiction to take further action in the case, except for certain limited *347functions.2 The magistrate certainly does not have jurisdiction to change the disposition of property in a judgment while the case is being considered by a higher court on appeal.
The district court heard the appeal on the record and, on October 27, 1983, issued an order which was filed on November 11, 1983, partially affirming the magistrate’s decision. However, the court agreed with the appellant husband that an award of alimony and support could not be made in the absence of a finding of fault, and therefore set that portion of the magistrate’s order aside and remanded the case to the magistrate to make a finding on the issue of whether or not the husband was at fault. It is at this point that the next procedural irregularity occurred. Even though the appellant timely moved in the district court for rehearing and reconsideration of the district court’s October 27, 1983, order, which meant that the case was still on appeal in the district court, the magistrate nevertheless jumped the gun and held a hearing on the issue of fault. By an order dated February 4, 1984, the magistrate found that the husband was at fault and reaffirmed the award of alimony in the divorce.
Meanwhile, back in the district court, the district judge was preparing to reconsider his October 27, 1983, order. The district court was apparently unaware that, while the motion for rehearing and reconsideration was pending in the district court, the magistrate had already made the fault determination. The hearing before the district court was held on March 15, 1984. Following the hearing, the district court withdrew its original October 27, 1983, decision and entered a new order, remanding the matter to the magistrate for a new division of the military retirement income absent any disability component, and also for a finding of fault. The district court’s final order was dated April 12, 1984, but actually filed with the clerk of the court on April 19, 1984.
It is obvious that litigation cannot be pending in two courts at the same time, and that the magistrate had no authority to be holding hearings and making findings on the issue of fault while that issue was still pending before the district court on rehearing. See I.A.R. 13(b).
The third procedural error occurred when, shortly after the district court entered its April 19th order, the magistrate, immediately proceeded to hold another hearing. On May 3, 1984, the magistrate reaffirmed his February 4,1984, order finding fault on the husband’s part. However, the appeal time had not yet run on the district court’s April 19th order when this hearing was held. On May 29, 1984, the plaintiff husband appealed to this Court from the decision of the district court entered on April 19, 1984.3
To complicate this procedural melange even further, the record reflects that on May 9, 1984, the respondent wife filed an amended notice of cross appeal, apparently from'the magistrate’s May 3, 1984, reaffirmance of his February 4, 1984, order. Therefore, it would appear from the record that for a time this case was proceeding in all three courts at the same time!
The primary problem I have with the majority opinion is that it fails to identify the proper decision which is the subject of the appeal to this Court. The notice of appeal to this Court states that, “The above named appellant, Irving E. LeVine, appeals against the above named Respondent to the Idaho Supreme Court from the amended decision and order entered in the *348above entitled action on the 19th day of April, 1984, The Honorable Robert M. Rowett, District Judge, presiding.” Thus, the only issue before this Court is whether the district court erred in its order filed April 19, 1984, which affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the cause to the magistrate court for further proceedings. However, the majority opinion approaches this case as though we are reviewing the magistrate’s May 3, 1984, order in which it reaffirmed the February 4, 1984, order. I believe the record is clear that both the February 4, 1984, and May 3, 1984, orders were made at a time when the case was pending in the district court, and the magistrate court had no jurisdiction to enter any order.
Having identified the precise order on appeal before this Court, (the district court’s order of April 19, 1984, in which it, sitting as an appellate court, affirmed in part and vacated in part and remanded the matter to the magistrate court for further findings), the appellant in his brief on appeal raises four specific issues.
The first issue is whether or not the district court erred in ruling that the magistrate court had properly retained jurisdiction of the military retirement benefit question for six months after having entered his judgment of divorce. While I have grave doubts about the propriety of a court retaining jurisdiction to change its decision on the assumption that there may be a retroactive legislative change in the law, I agree with the majority’s handling of that issue. Since the district court could, on direct appeal, retroactively apply the Federal Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act to the facts of this case, Steczo v. Steczo, 139 Ariz. 199, 659 P.2d 1344 (App.1983), the first issue raised by the appellant need not be decided.
The second issue raised by the appellant is whether the district court erred in remanding the issue of whether or not the husband was at fault to the magistrate court. The appellant’s argument is that the magistrate court had already entered a final judgment of divorce based on irreconcilable differences, and therefore could not go back and make a finding on the question of fault. I again agree with the majority that, where the magistrate court has not made a critical finding of fact on one of the issues in an action, the district court on appeal was authorized and justified to vacate the trial court’s award of alimony and maintenance and remand the matter to make a finding on the issue of fault. Where a trial court makes inadequate or no findings on a material issue in an action, it is appropriate to remand for additional findings. Owen v. Boydstun, 102 Idaho 31, 36, 624 P.2d 413, 418 (1981).
The third issue raised by the appellant is whether or not the district court erred in affirming the award of maintenance without properly weighing the factors required by I.C. § 32-705. It seems to me that since the district court remanded that issue to the magistrate court for a finding on that issue, that issue is not ripe for decision in this Court. Until the magistrate court, at the proper time and in the proper manner, makes its findings on that issue and renders a new amended decree, it would be inappropriate to address that issue.4
The fourth and last issue raised by the appellant was that the district court erred in affirming the trial court’s division of the *349community property despite the trial court’s failure to make specific findings as to the value of the items of community property allocated to each spouse. In that regard, I believe that the appellant’s point is well taken. I.R.C.P. 52(a) requires the trial court to find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment. Case law also directs that the trial court must make specific findings when dividing community property. Donndelinger v. Donndelinger, 107 Idaho 431, 436-37, 690 P.2d 366, 372 (Ct.App.1984); accord Simplot v. Simplot, 96 Idaho 239, 526 P.2d 844 (1974). The magistrate court’s decision did not identify the property being awarded to either party in its findings and judgment, but merely awarded to the parties “all personal property that was in their respective possessions at the time of trial herein. In addition, plaintiff shall receive all business related personal property and real property for the purposes of carrying on his trade as a doctor of veterinary medicine.” From the decree there is no way of knowing which specific items of property each person received. Furthermore, there is no legal description of the real property for purposes of establishing title to the property in the appellant husband.
But that is only a portion of the appellant’s complaint. Appellant argues that the trial court made no determination of the value of the various items of property allocated to each spouse, whatever they are, and that, because of those inadequate findings, there is no way an appellate court can determine whether the trial court made a fair division of the community property or not. The majority opinion attempts to get around this lack of adequate findings by stating that “the property division essentially complies with the parties’ desires [and] the husband cannot be heard to object now.” There is really no evidence to sustain that conclusion by the majority. The majority points to certain testimony on page 61 of the transcript in which the husband was asked:
“In regard to the division of the property between you and Mrs. LeVine, what is your desire?
“A. I think it would only be fair for myself to assume the major burden of the debts, which is somewhere in the area of $40-45,000 at this time, and to keep my own personal clothing and items that I have in my possession now and the same with her. She has the furniture, her car, her personal clothes, those of the children, etc.
“Q. How about the practice?
“A. The practice itself is a means to pay off these now burdensome debts and I’ll do my best to do that.
“Q. Well, how would you like that divided?
“A. There is no practice without myself. I think that I should have it.”
The magistrate court had earlier ruled that the husband’s veterinary license and his right to practice veterinary medicine was his separate property and was not a community asset which could be divided by the court. Accordingly, when the appellant indicated that he was going to pay the debts from the practice, that was not offsetting community assets against community debts, but was indicating the source of his own separate funds which would ultimately be used to pay off the debt burden which he would have to assume in the final judgment. It cannot be said from the record that the husband “desires” all of the' debt, both business and personal, without a fair and reasonable allocation of the community assets to offset those debts. Since there is nothing in the trial court’s findings or judgment to establish what those assets are, or their values, there is no way for an appellate court to accurately and adequately evaluate either the identity of or the fairness of the distribution of the community property and debts. Such a failure constitutes reversible error. See Donndelinger v. Donndelinger, supra; Simplot v. Simplot, supra.
In any event, it is difficult to understand why the district court did not require additional findings on this issue, since its order *350of April 19, 1984 (the order on appeal before this Court) remands this cause back to the magistrate court to make further findings. The district court should have required the magistrate to enter amended findings on the distribution of the property and to set values so that an accurate evaluation of the distribution of the property in this case could be made.
A remand for specific findings as to division of the property was previously ordered by this Court in Griggs v. Griggs, 107 Idaho 123, 686 P.2d 68 (1984). In Griggs, this Court determined that while military retirement pay was subject to division as community property, “disability pay” was not. In view of that conclusion, the Griggs Court remanded the matter to the trial court for a just division of the community property, noting that, “The record on this matter is wholly inadequate to make an accurate division of the property at this time.” In this case the district court’s April 19, 1984, order remanded the matter back to the magistrate court for a determination of how much of the plaintiff appellant’s military retirement benefits should be designated as “disability pay” and therefore not subject to division. Since the original magistrate’s decision has never made “an accurate division of the property,” nor has it fixed the values of the property or the indebtedness, the appropriate remedy would be to remand this matter with directions to have the magistrate make a specific determination of the valuation of the property and the indebtedness, and make a specific distribution, so that the court can determine on review, if there is one, whether or not that division is “just.” Griggs v. Griggs, supra.
In conclusion, the proper disposition of this case should affirm the district court’s order of April 19, 1984, except that portion which affirmed the magistrate court’s disposition of the property, and order the district court to remand to the magistrate. On remand, the magistrate should consider the issue of fault on the part of the husband for purposes of determining alimony and maintenance and enter specific findings regarding disposition of the individual items of personal property, determining their value so that the fairness and reasonableness of the property disposition in this case can be determined.
Finally, the decision of the majority of the Court may well cause substantial confusion when the remittitur of this Court issues to the district court. The majority affirms the district court, which is the order dated April 19, 1984. That order affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded this case back to the magistrate court to make further findings. I am sure the parties will find it difficult, after reading the majority opinion, to determine the matters that are going to be relitigated in the magistrate court, not to mention the appeal which is presently pending before the district court, as a result of the respondent wife’s amended notice of cross appeal filed May 9, 1984. I believe that we can provide more definitive direction to the courts below than merely stating that the district court is “affirmed.”

. When the district court is acting in an appellate capacity, the court is generally limited to reviewing final judgments of the magistrate division. See I.R.C.P. 83(a)(1); State, Dept. of Law Enforcement v. One 1955 Willys Jeep, 100 Idaho 150, 152, 595 P.2d 299, 301 (1979). A listing of other appealable orders, none of *347which are pertinent here, may be found in I.R. C.P. 83(a)(2).

. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 83(x), I.A.R. 13(b) sets out the limits to the magistrate court's power and authority during the pendency of an appeal. Generally, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction once an appeal has been taken. See Avondale Irr. Dist. v. North Idaho Properties, 99 Idaho 30, 577 P.2d 9 (1978); First Security Bank v. Neibaur, 98 Idaho 598, 570 P.2d 276 (1977).

. Under I.A.R. 11(a)(1) the April 19, 1984, decision of the district court remanding the case to the magistrate court is an order of the district court which may be appealed directly to this Court.

. Both parties have attempted to again appeal from the magistrate’s February 4, 1984, decision and its May 3, 1984, order. However, the defendant respondent, in a motion for reconsider- - ation or rehearing filed March 20, 1984, expressed "serious concern whether this court [the magistrate court] had jurisdiction to rule on the issues remanded to the court until after the appellate court has ruled on plaintiff’s petition for rehearing. To avoid future litigation relating to whether this court [magistrate court] had jurisdiction to hear the matters on remand until after the appellate court [district court] made a final order on plaintiffs motion for rehearing, defendant requests the court to set a date to reconsider its order of February 7, 1984 [February 4, 1984] at a time and date subsequent to the [appellate court’s] decision on plaintiffs motion for rehearing.” The magistrate subsequently acknowledged the jurisdictional problem as reflected by a minute entry dated April 3, 1984. This entry notes that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to consider a motion to strike the appeal.