WHITMAN v WHITMAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12538 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN 1974 FRANCIS J . WHITMAN, P l a i n t i f f and Cross Defendant and Appellant, THELMA S. WHITMAN, Defendant apd Cross Complainant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Honorable @~3-.I=2*, M,~ Counsel of Record : 4 if+j~-c&* L For Appellant : Bennett*and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana Lyman H. Bennett I11 argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Drysdale, McLean and S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana John P . S c u l l y argued, Bozeman, Montana ** # , Submitted : January 15, 1974 Decided : HfiR ~l1974, r+? 1 F i l e d : MAR -. 1 1974 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f F r a n c i s J. Whitman, i s from a judgment of d i v o r c e e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , i n t h e e i g h t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County. Due t o t h e f a c t i s s u e s a r i s i n g o u t of two h e a r i n g s a r e i n volved, we w i l l s e t f o r t h t h e procedu.ra1 m a t t e r s a s they a r o s e p r i o r t o t h i s appeal. The d i v o r c e judgment was e n t e r e d by Judge L e s s l e y on February 22, 1973. The d e c r e e g r a n t e d defendant Thelma S. Whitman a d i v o r c e ; provided f o r a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t ; an.d r e q u i r e d p l a i n t i f f t o pay defendant $800 p e r month a s alimony,plus $1,500 a t t o r n e y f e e s . Subsequent t o t h e f i l i n g of n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , defendant f i l e d a motion supported by a n a f f i d a v i t t o r e q u i r e p l a i n t i f f t o commence alimony payments and pay t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s . T h e r e a f t e r Judge Lessley i s s u e d a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e , d a t e d June 5 , 1973, r e q u i r i n g p l a i n t i f f t o appear i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e motion. Upon r e c e i v i n g t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e , p l a i n t i f f d i s q u a l i f i e d Judge Lessley and Judge Freebourn was c a l l e d t o h e a r t h e show cause Hearing was h e l d on J u l y 3 , 1973. Subsequently Judge to Freebourn ordered p l a i n t i f f l P a y temporary alimony of $800 p e r motion. month, p l u s t h e a t t o r n e y f e e . P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h e d e c r e e and Judge ~ r e e b o u r n ' so r d e r . The p a r t i e s were married i n 1937 and have l i v e d i n West Yellowstone, Montana a l l t h e i r married l i f e . Three c h i l d r e n were born a s i s s u e of t h e marriage, b u t a r e now of l e g a l age. In the e a r l y y e a r s of t h e marriage t h e p a r t i e s had l i t t l e i n t h e way of wealth o r p r o p e r t y , b u t commencing i n t h e m i d - 1 9 4 0 ' s ~ through t h e i r j o i n t e f f o r t s , t h e y accumulated b o t h r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y which a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e amounted t o s e v e r a l hundred thousand d o l l a r s . A t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e t h e husband was 67 y e a r s of age and t h e w i f e 58 y e a r s of age. For some 35 y e a r s t h e y l i v e d and worked t o g e t h e r i n what could be d e s c r i b e d a s a good marriage. Most of t h a t time defendant was a mother and housewife, b u t d u r i n g p a r t of t h e time she c a r e d f o r t h e i r t o u r i s t c a b i n s when needed and worked a s a c l e r k i n t h e i r s t o r e . Except f o r h i g h blood p r e s s u r e and d i a b e t e s she was a w e l l person. P l a i n t i f f obviously had worked hard over t h o s e y e a r s and had s u c c e s s f u l l y accumulated considerable assets. I n 1971 he r e t i r e d and t h e g a s s t a t i o n he owned was l e a s e d , b r i n g i n g him $1,000 p e r month. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t one of t h e r e a s o n s f o r r e t i r i n g was h i s h e a l t h and t h a t he was fl worn o u t f f . For t h i s c o u p l e r e t i r e m e n t brought problems. r e t i r e d on January 1, 1971. Plaintiff By summer he had moved o u t t o a l a k e i n a t r a i l e r where he s t a y e d u n t i l t h a t f a l l ; when he r e t u r n e d t o t h e i r home he was t o l d he was n o t welcome. months he was away from t h e home. For t h e n e x t s i x When he r e t u r n e d t o West Y e l l ~ w - s t o n e i n t h e s p r i n g of 1972, he was informed by defendant t h a t t h e marriage was over and a f t e r f a i l i n g i n h i s e f f o r t f o r r e c o n c i l l a t i o n , he f i l e d f o r a d i v o r c e . Defendant cross-complained c h a r g i n g c r u e l t y and t h e c z u s e went t o a h e a r i n g . Due t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d h e r e , we n o t e t h a t p l a i n t i f f i n h i s complaint evidenced a w i l l i n g n e s s pay $400 p e r month f o r s u p p o r t of defendant. I n h e r c r o s s - c o m p l a i n t defendant asked f o r $700 p e r month, a d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y and a t t o r n e y f e e s . After h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t awarded defendant t h e d i v o r c e ; t h e home and land on which i t was s i t u a t e d ; one-half t h e s a v i n g s of t h e p a r t i e s ; an automobile; a b o a t ; and $800 p e r month s u p p o r t . P l a i n t i f f was allowed t o keep t h e income producing p r o p e r t y . To t h e d a t e of t h e d i v o r c e and d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of s e p a r a t i o n p l a i n t i f f had been g i v i n g defendant $400 p e r month, p l u s approximately $10,500 i n cash. Defendant c h a l l e n g e s t h a t f i g u r e b u t admits r e - c e i v i n g money from p l a i n t i f f . Following Judge ~ e s s l e y ' sjudgment, p l a i n t i f f stopped payment o f t h e $400 s u p p o r t money and r e f u s e d per t o pay t h e ordered $800 month award o r t h e a t t o r n e y f e e , which r e f u s a l brought about t h e h e a r i n g p r e s i d e d over by Judge Freebourn some f o u r and a h a l f months l a t e r . P l a i n t i f f r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on a p p e a l which we w i l l combine, f o r purposes of t h i s opinion. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n granting : 1. A d i v o r c e t o defendant and n o t t o p l a i n t i f f ? Alimony defendant i n t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n and i n t h e s p e c i a l proceedings pending t h e a p p e a l ? 3. Attorney f e e s i n both proceedings? The f i r s t i s s u e c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y power provided i n s e c t i o n 21-103, R.C.M 1947. Here, p l a i n t i f f f i r s t sought t h e d i v o r c e by f i l i n g h i s complaint. answered and f i l e d a cross-complaint. Defendant I f proven, p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n s were s u f f i c i e n t t o g r a n t him a d i v o r c e , b u t a f t e r a f u l l h e a r i n g t h e t r i a l judge determined t h a t he had n o t proven h i s a l l e g a t i o n s b u t t h a t defendant had proven h e r s . By t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e s t a t u t e t h e t r i a l judge had t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o s o f i n d . The complaint was couched i n t h e language of s e c t i o n 21-106, 1947, charging mental c r u e l t y . R.C.M. This Court i n Judson, Adm. v. Anderson, 118 Mont. 106, 109, 165 P.2d 198, h e l d : "The s o l e q u e s t i o n presented on t h i s a p p e a l i s t h a t of t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o supp o r t t h e d e c r e e and judgment. The answer t o t h i s depends upon whether o r n o t t h e evidence substant i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i n f l i c t i o n of extreme c r u e l t y by t h e defendant upon t h e p l a i n t i f f , a s contemplated by s t a t u t e and a s a l l e g e d i n t h e complaint. A t t h e o u t s e t we a f f i r m and r e i t e r a t e t h e r u l e t h a t i n c a s e s of t h i s n a t u r e t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d by t h i s c o u r t where t h e r e c o r d cont a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence upon which they may be s u s t a i n e d ; t h a t when t h e evidence f u r n i s h e s a substant i a l b a s i s f o r t h e f i n d i n g s t h e y w i l l be permitted t o stand." See a l s o : Boggs v. Boggs, 119 Mont. 540, 177 P.2d 869; B r i s t o l v. B r i s t o l , 65 Mont. 508, 211 P. 205. W have c a r e f u l l y examined t h e r e c o r d and f i n d no e r r o r i n e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g t h e d i v o r c e t o defendant. The second i s s u e concerns t h e awarding of $800 p e r month s u p p o r t f o r defendant. P l a i n t i f f argues t h e r e i s n o t one i o t a of evidence upon which t h e t r i a l c o u r t could have a r r i v e d a t t h a t figure. W have r e a d t h e r e c o r d w i t h utmost c a r e and f i n d i t e f a i l s t o support t h e $800 award. T h i s Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t where such f i n d i n g s a r e j u s t i f i e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, b u t i t w i l l s e t a s i d e f i n d i n g s n o t supported o r j u s t i f i e d . Judson, Adm. v. Anderson, s u p r a ; Putnam v. Putnam, 86 Mont. 135, 282 P. 855. I n reviewing t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , we f i n d t h e r e i s a l a c k of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support such f i n d i n g s and conclusions. W n o t e , commencing w i t h f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 5 , which e h a s f i v e subparagraphs devoted t o a breakdown o f t h e p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s and which a s s i g n s v a l u a t i o n s t o such p r o p e r t y , t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s do n o t f o l l o w t h e evidence: 1) Concerns t h e home, f a c i l i t i e s and t h e l o t . s e t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t was $40,000. The v a l u a t i o n P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d he had turned down an o f f e r of $80,000 f o r t h e home s e v e r a l y e a r s b e f o r e He made a n o f f e r of $40,000 f o r t h e home i n l i e u of the t r i a l . alimony t o defendant. Defendant t e s t i f i e d s h e thought t h e house and l o t were worth a t l e a s t $50,000. 2) Concerns t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n , s t o r e and l o t and p l a c e s t h e v a l u e a t $400,000 and p l a i n t i f f ' s one-half i n t e r e s t a t $200,000. p l a i n t i f f ' s testimony i n d i c a t e d t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n grossed $70,000 a y e a r from 1962 t o 1970; t h a t t h e n e t p e r y e a r was $35,000 ( h i s s h a r e being $17,500); t h a t he r e c e i v e d $15,000 when he r e t i r e d and s t i l l r e c e i v e s $1,000 p e r month on a l e a s e t h a t i s t o b e renegot i a t e d i n 1975. 3) S e t s t h e t o t a l v a l u e of a l l s a v i n g s a c c o u n t s , c e r t i f i - c a t e s o f d e p o s i t and U.S. a t $100,000. Savings Bonds, h e l d i n j o i n t tenancy, P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d t h e savings t o t a l e d $40,000, p l u s approximately $40,000 i n U.S. Bonds, making a t o t a l of $80,000. I n answer t o a n i n t e r r o g a t o r y he s e t h i s s a v i n g s a t $39,000. Viewing t h e testimony i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , we can f i n d no b a s i s f o r t h e $100,000 f i g u r e . A t best, t h e items t o t a l $80,000. 4) Concerns r e f e r e n c e made t o f i v e s h a r e s of c a p i t a l s t o c k i n t h e F i r s t S e c u r i t y Bank of West Yellowstone, Montana. N finding o o f v a l u e was made, n o r was t h e r e any testimony given a t t h e t r i a l a s t o t h e v a l u e of t h e s t o c k , 5 ) Concerns a pickup t r u c k owned by p l a i n t i f f ; a 1971 Ford s t a t i o n wagon j o i n t l y owned by t h e p a r t i e s ; two b o a t s ; household goods; and a b o a t t r a i l e r owned by p l a i n t i f f . given. N valuations a r e o Testimony a t t h e t r i a l and answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s a r e confusing a s t o t h e y e a r models and v a l u e s of t h e pickup and t h e Ford. The Ford was given t o defendant by p l a i n t i f f a t t h e time of t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n . Although household f u r n i s h i n g s a r e u s u a l l y included i n a house v a l u a t i o n , t h e r e was no s e p a r a t e testimony a s t o t h e v a l u e of t h e f u r n i s h i n g s , except t h a t i n i n t e r r o g a t o r y 24 which gave a $2400 value. The ownership and v a l u a t i o n o f t h e two b o a t s and a snowmobile was l e f t i n doubt by t h e v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 7 r e c o r d s p l a i n t i f f ' s income a s : $205 p e r month from s o c i a l s e c u r i t y ; $1,000 p e r month from a l e a s e of t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n ; undetermined amount of i n t e r e s t from s a v i n g s accounts, e t c . ; f o r a t o t a l of $2,000 p e r month. Obviously t h i s t o a l monthly income i s erroneous. Plaintiff testi- f i e d he r e c e i v e d t h e $205 p e r month s o c i a l s e c u r i t y , and i n t e r e s t on s a v i n g s accounts, c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t s and bonds i n t h e amount of $66.02 p e r q u a r t e r o r approximately $22 p e r month. The j o i n t f e d e r a l income t a x r e t u r n f o r 1972, shows dividend and i n t e r e s t income t o be $4,257.56 o r approximately $354.96 p e r month f o r t h a t year. Here a g a i n , t h e f i g u r e s and testimony do n o t add. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 9 concerns t h e defendant w i f e ' s income, I t n o t e s an approximate $10,000 i n h e r name o f which $9,500 was given t o h e r by p l a i n t i f f . Then, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i s p a r i t y of income and p r o p e r t y i n p l a i n t i f f ' s name, t h e c o u r t f i n d s defendant e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s . At trial p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d he gave defendant $9100 a t t h e time of t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n i n a d d i t i o n t o a monthly payment of $400 f o r f o u r months, o r a t o t a l of $1600. I n a d d i t i o n he t e s t i f i e d he gave h e r a n a d d i - t i o n a l $1700 b r i n g i n g h i s t e s t i f i e d t o t a l t o $12,400. I n any e v e n t t h e amount of money she r e c e i v e d i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The trial court's finding of fact No. 10 is directed to all the property heretofore described and divides it equally based on the parties' joint efforts. This finding is totally inconsistent with its finding of fact No.12 which makes the actual division, leaving plaintiff valued at $250,000 (court val~ation) and defendant valued at $90,000 (court valuation). Finding of fact No. 11 notes that defendant wife is not trained for any occupation and her minimal support and maintenance requirements amount to $800 per month. For the record we note she asked for $750 in her cross-complaint; she testified that with an equal division of the property she would need no alimony; otherwise she would require from $600 to $700 per month alimony. On cross-examination, she testified that if she could sell the home for $50,000 and then invest the money she could get $200 per month interest and would need only from $500 to $600 per month alimony. The trial court's finding of fact No. 12 makes this property division : Husband Interest in service station $200,000 (inc luding lease) ? Bank Stock Pickup Truck ? Boat d Trailer ? 1/2 Savings,Bonds,etc. 40,000 Total assets found by Court $250,000. Wife House with furniture Boat (Inboard) 1971 Ford Wagon 1/2 Savings,Bonds,etc Total assets found by Court $40,000 ? ? 40,000 $90,000. In addition, items not mentioned in the trial court's findings but testified to or mentioned in the interrogatories were a life insurance policy of plaintiff naming defendant wife as beneficiary and valued in excess of $2000 and a jointly owned Travelease trailer valued at $4000. In view of the discrepancies above noted, it is obvious that the case must be remanded to the trial court for a hearing to establish a proper division of property and/or alimony for the support of defendant. Section 93-216, R.C.M. 1947, establishes the duty imposed on this Court in determining questions of fact in equity cases. Unless for good reason a new trial or the taking of additional evidence is ordered in the district court, that court's decision will be affirmed. In approaching our decision here, we are not unmindful that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 93-216, it is the settled rule that this Court will hesitate to overrule findings, even though based on substantially conflicting evidence. Kasala v. Kalispell Pee Wee Baseball League, 151 Plont. 109, 439 P.2d 65; Bouma v. Bynum Irrigation Dist., 139 Mont. 360, 364 P.2d 47. However in a case such as the instant one, where insufficient evidence has been furnished to confirm the findings of the trial court, this Court will not hesitate to return the cause to the trial court. plaintiff's third issue is directed to the awarding of attorney fees in both hearings to defendant. R.C.M. Section 21-137, 1947, provides the statutory authority for such awards and states in pertinent part: 1t While an action for divorce is pending the court or judge may, in its or his discretion, require the husband to pay as alimony any money necessary to enable the wife to support herself or her children, or to prosecute or defend the action," (Emphasis added). Over the years that this issue has been raised in cases considered by this Court, from Bordeaux v. Bordeaux, 29 Mont. 478, 75 P. 359, to State ex rel. Sowerwine v. Dist. Ct., 145 Mont. 375, 401 P.2d 568, the Court has consistently held that a showing of necessity is a condition precedent to the exercise of the court's discretion to grant attorney fees. Therefore, the decree is modified by striking the provision awarding defendant attorney fees. The cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a proper d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y a n d / o r alimony f o r t h e defendant. Each p a r t y i s t o b e a r i t s own c o s t s . W Concur: e -r-,,-,-,-,L,,-,-,-------------C.. 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.