HAABY v HAABY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12814 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN 1974 LOUIS!:MOHR HAABY , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - EARL STANLEY HAABY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J. Nelson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Church, H a r r i s , Johnson & Williams, Great F a l l s , Montana Cresap S. McCracken, argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : John McCarvel argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided November 18, 1974 'DEc 8 1974 Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court Mr. . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Cascade County. The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h e p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d on March 24, 1969. P u r s u a n t t o t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e E a r l S t a n l e y Haaby was o r d e r e d t o pay $100 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r e a c h of h i s two minor d a u g h t e r s ( t h e n aged 17 and 1 2 ) a s l o n g a s t h e y were minors o r enrolled i n school. A house j o i n t l y owned by t h e p a r t i e s was t o be p l a c e d on t h e market f o r s a l e immediately. L o u i s e Mohr Haaby w a s a l l o w e d t o r e s i d e i n t h e house, and E a r l was o r d e r e d t o make t h e house payments of $183 p e r month u n t i l it was s o l d . The p a r t i e s were t o s h a r e e q u a l l y i n t h e n e t e q u i t y . S i n c e t h e d i v o r c e E a r l h a s made t h e house payments e v e r y month t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g t h e mortgage b a l a n c e from $12,344.16 t o $9,038.36 a s of A p r i l 1 2 , 1974. The house r e m a i n s u n s o l d . h a s a l s o p a i d $600 f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s two d a u g h t e r s . Earl However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e r m s of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e , a t o t a l of $7,000 i n c h i l d s u p p o r t s h o u l d have been p a i d from t h e t i m e of t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n which l e d t o t h i s s u i t . On A p r i l 1 6 , 1974, E a r l p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Cascade County f o r a n o r d e r e s t a b l i s h i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e divorce decree. L o u i s e ' s r e s p o n s e p u t s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h a t d e c r e e i n i s s u e and s o u g h t a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g payment of unpaid c h i l d s u p p o r t . Hearing on t h e m a t t e r was h e l d on May 2 , 1974, w i t h E a r l being t h e only witness. H e t e s t i f i e d t h e r e w a s an understanding between t h e p a r t i e s t h a t s i n c e t h e house was n o t s o l d r i g h t away house payments would be made i n l i e u of t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments; b u t a d m i t t e d t h e r e had n e v e r been any f o r m a l agreement t o t h a t effect. O n May 7 , 1974 t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r which, among o t h e r t h i n g s , g r a n t e d E a r l ' s p e t i t i o n f o r t h i s o r d e r were: The r e a s o n s (1) t h e house had n o t been s o l d i m m e d i a t e l y , a s t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e had p r o v i d e d , and ( 2 ) t h e a c t i o n s of both p a r t i e s during t h e f i v e y e a r s s i n c e t h e divorce had, i n f a c t , a l r e a d y amended t h e d e c r e e . From t h i s o r d e r a p p e a l i s t a k e n . The r u l e t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y i s s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t it r e q u i r e s no r e c i t a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , w e f i n d l i t t l e , i f any, c o n t r a r y c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e ; i n d e e d , a p p e l l a n t a p p e a r s t o have r e a p e d f a r more b e n e f i t from t h e house payments t h a n s h e b a r g a i n e d f o r under t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e . Had t h e d e c r e e been r i g i d l y o b s e r v e d , a p p e l l a n t would have r e c e i v e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $7,000 i n c h i l d s u p p o r t payments, p l u s a t most $1,200 f o r s i x months u s e of t h e house (which had a r e n t a l v a l u e o f $200 p e r month) p l u s h e r s h a r e of t h e n e t e q u i t y a f t e r t h e house was s o l d . A s it t u r n e d o u t , a p p e l l a n t r e c e i v e d $600 i n c h i l d s u p p o r t p l u s $10,800 f o r t h e u s e of t h e house f o r a n " a d d i t i o n a l " f o u r and one-half years. Meanwhile, h e r s h a r e of t h e n e t e q u i t y h a s i n c r e a s e d by o v e r $1,600 on a c c o u n t of t h e mortgage r e d u c t i o n , t o s a y n o t h i n g of t h e r e c e n t g e n e r a l i n c r e a s e i n p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . To a c c e p t a p p e l l a n t ' s p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was o b l i g a t e d t o pay b o t h c h i l d s u p p o r t and house payments d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e p e r i o d i n q u e s t i o n would be t o r e a d i n t o t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e a n o n e r o u s burden it p l a i n l y n e v e r contemplated. A p p e l l a n t n e x t p o i n t s o u t t h a t , a s i d e from t h e i n i t i a l $600 payment f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t , r e s p o n d e n t h a s r e a l l y o n l y " p a i d " $91.50 p e r month s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e , on t h e t h e o r y t h a t h a l f o f t h e $183 monthly house payments a c c r u e d t o h i s b e n e f i t a n d , f u r t h e r m o r e , r e s p o n d e n t h a s r e a l i z e d t h e r e s u l t a n t income t a x advantages. A p p a r e n t l y t h e i m p l i c a t i o n t o be drawn i s t h a t t h i s somehow makes r e s p o n d e n t d e l i n q u e n t under t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e b e c a u s e h i s p o c k e t book was n o t h i t q u i t e a s h a r d as o r i g i n a l l y tlioug hi;. This contention, of course, i s every b i t a s tenuous a s i t sounds: F i r s t , a s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t recognized, it i s e l e m e n t a r y t h a t t h e p e r s o n who makes h o u s e payments i s , w i t h o u t more, e n t i t l e d t o a n y t a x b e n e f i t s f l o w i n g t h e r e f r o m . Sec- o n d , s i m p l e a r i t h m e t i c d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t was h a r d l y s h o r t c h a n g e d i n r e c e i v i n g h o u s e payments i n s t e a d o f c h i l d support. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t ' s l i n e of reasoning overlooks t h e main p u r p o s e o f t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e - - f i n a n c i a l a p p e l l a n t and h e r d a u g h t e r s . p r o t e c t i o n of Whether o r n o t economic a d v a n t a g e s a c c r u e d t o r e s p o n d e n t by v i r t u e o f making t h e payments h e made i s i m m a t e r i a l a s l o n g a s t h e o b j e c t i v e o f p r o t e c t i o n was s a t i s - f a c t o r i l y achieved. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g re- s p o n d e n t ' s f a i t h f u l n e s s i n making t h e h o u s e payments a n d a p p e l l a n t ' s apparent contentment with t h e s i t u a t i o n f o r f i v e y e a r s , c o n c l u d e d t h e whole a r r a n g e m e n t was e m i n e n t l y f a i r . We agree. I t i s s i m p l y a m a t t e r o f s t r i p p i n g away t h e f o r m t o g e t a t t h e substance. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r i s a f f i r m e d . Chief J u s t i c e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
