MARRIAGE OF GREEN v GREEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14532 IN THE SUPHEME COURT O THE STATE O MXTANA F F 1979 IN RE THE MARRIAGE O F IRENE L . GREEN, A Petitioner and Respondent, Respondent and Appellant. D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Homrable Edward Dussault, Judge presiding. Appeal f m : Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Balyeat and Kamwrer, Missoula, Pbntana John Balyeat argued, Missoula, Pbntana For Respondent: Tipp, Haven and Skjelset, Missoula, Pbntana Thamas Frizzell argued, Missoula, Mxkana Sutnnitted: =ided: Filed: - -. -% . - ..;?:$ . March 15, 1979 ;".F ' 1 : n - %, A 3.7 J u s t i c e John Conway 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. Dr. Norman Green a p p e a l s from 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 F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , M i s s o u l a County, t h e Honorable Edward T. D u s s a u l t p r e s i d i n g , r e l a t i n g t o t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e p a r t i e s ' a s s e t s i n conjunction with t h e i r d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage. The c o u r t , s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , h e a r d t h e m a t t e r on two n o n s u c c e s s i v e d a y s . On t h e f i r s t , F e b r u a r y 7 , 1978, a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n w a s e n t e r e d p u r s u a n t t o s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s ; t h e A p r i l 11, 1978, h e a r i n g w a s c o n f i n e d t o q u e s t i o n s of t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s were f i l e d J u n e 23, 1978. A p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t s t w e l v e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w , many of which a r e r e p e t i t i v e . D i s t i l l e d t o t h e i r essence, they c e n t e r on t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e assets o f t h e p a r t i e s a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 48-321, 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-202 R.C.M. MCA, of Montana's Uniform Mar- r i a g e and D i v o r c e Act? 2. Were t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s p r o p e r l y made and based on 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 ? 3. Did t h e c o u r t err i n awarding I r e n e Green main- t e n a n c e and a t t o r n e y f e e s ? 4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a d m i t t i n g r e s p o n - dent's Exhibit No. 4, substantially prejudicing appellant thereby? The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d December 5 , 1969, a t which t i m e r e s p o n d e n t I r e n e Green w a s a cook a t a t r u c k s t o p and a p p e l l a n t w a s , a s now, a p h y s i c i a n . Both had been m a r r i e d p r e v i o u s l y , and e a c h had minor c h i l d r e n . Each, t o o , had a s s e t s : r e s p o n d e n t had t h e s e l l e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n a c o n t r a c t f o r deed on r e a l e s t a t e n e a r Lolo, Montana; a p p e l l a n t had $5000 i n a Keough r e t i r e m e n t p l a n , owned a n a i r p l a n e , and owned a b u i l d i n g used a s a m e d i c a l c l i n i c i n Shaunavon, Saskatchewan, Canada, t h e s u b s t a n t i a l l o a n s f o r which were paid off during t h e marriage. A t t h e t i m e of t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n , t h e District Court found t h a t t h e p a r t i e s owned t h e f o l l o w i n g : t h e s e l l e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e Lolo p r o p e r t y , t h e a i r p l a n e , t h e c l i n i c , a house on t e n acres on M i l l e r Creek i n M i s s o u l a , and a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e R i v e r s i d e B a r i n Hamilton. I n addi- t i o n , D r . Green had $17,500 i n t h e Keough r e t i r e m e n t p l a n . The p a r t i e s a l s o had v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , which a p p e l l a n t acknowledges was d i v i d e d e v e n l y . I n addition, the p a r t i e s had d e b t s and l i a b i l i t i e s t o t a l i n g some $127,000. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i v i d e d t h e p r o p e r t y as f o l l o w s : Mrs. to Green, t h e s e l l e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed o n t h e Lolo p r o p e r t y and t h e h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e Hamilton b a r , where s h e works; t o D r . Green, e v e r y t h i n g else. It appears t h a t each received property b e s t s u i t e d t o t h a t individual. Mrs. Green makes h e r l i v i n g from t h e b a r - - i t makes s e n s e t h a t s h e r e c e i v e t h e p a r t i e s ' i n t e r e s t i n t h a t property. She had a c q u i r e d t h e Lolo p r o p e r t y c o n t r a c t f o r deed from h e r former husband i n l i e u o f monthly s u p p o r t payments f o r h e r two c h i l d r e n by t h a t p r i o r m a r r i a g e - - i t makes s e n s e t h a t she receive t h a t , also. Dr. Green i s t h e o n l y one of t h e p a i r who h a s a p i l o t ' s l i c e n s e ; hence, t h a t he should g e t t h e p l a n e i s reasonable. H e i s a p h y s i c i a n , who came i n t o t h e m a r r i a g e w i t h a n i n - t e r e s t i n t h e m e d i c a l c l i n i c ; i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t h a t h e keep t h a t p r o p e r t y and t h e a t t e n d a n t s h a r e of t h e income from i t . ~ i k e w i s e ,i t i s e c o n o m i c a l l y s e n s i b l e t h a t h e keep h i s Keough r e t i r e m e n t p l a n . Mrs. Green moved o u t of t h e M i l l e r Creek house a t t h e t i m e of s e p a r a t i o n . a f t e r the separation. Dr. Green c o n t i n u e d t o l i v e i n t h e home I t a p p e a r s r e a s o n a b l e t h a t D r . Green s h o u l d b e awarded a l l of t h e p r o c e e d s from t h e s a l e o f t h e home. A t t h e t i m e of t h e s e p a r a t i o n , t h e home was w o r t h a t l e a s t $82,000. A p p e l l a n t had t o p r o v i d e $43,000 t o r e t i r e t h e d e b t owing o n t h e h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e R i v e r s i d e B a r , t h e $4000 f o r e i g h t months o f m a i n t e n a n c e and, p e r h a p s , a s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d l a t e r , $1500 f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . T h a t he assume c e r t a i n of t h e d e b t s d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n e q u i t a b l e . For example, a s i z e a b l e l o a n had been t a k e n o u t i n M r s . G r e e n ' s name t o pay D r . G r e e n ' s a r r e a r a g e s i n s u p p o r t owed h i s w i f e and o f f s p r i n g from a p r i o r m a r r i a g e ; t h a t h e s h o u l d assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n e q u i t a b l e and unreasonable. U n c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d i s t h e why and t h e w h e r e f o r e of some of t h e l o a n s . W e cannot speculate about them, b u t a b s e n t c o m p e l l i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s t o t h e c o n t r a r y , i t d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n e q u i t a b l e t h a t D r . Green, t h e p a r t y e a r n i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $6000 p e r month, a s opposed t o M r s . Green, who e a r n s w e l l u n d e r $1000 p e r month, i s t o d i s c h a r g e t h e obligations. The s i t u a t i o n i s n o t , a s a p p e l l a n t s u g g e s t s , one of l e a v i n g him " w i t h some f u r n i t u r e and a n o l d c a r , " w h i l e t h e w i f e i s " s i t t i n g on t h e s i d e l a u g h i n g . " Given t h e n a t u r e of t h e p r o p e r t y t o b e d i s t r i b u t e d and w i t h due c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e i t e m s e l a b o r a t e d i n s e c t i o n 48-321, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-202 MCA, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n made by t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t i n d e e d was e q u i t a b l e . t settled that It i s well " [ t ] he a p p o r t i o n m e n t made by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d on r e v i e w u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been a c l e a r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n a s m a n i f e s t e d by a s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l assets r e s u l t i n g i n substantial injustice." Mont. I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 587 P.2d 361, 364, 35 St.Rep. i n t e r a l i a , I n re M a r r i a g e of B l a i r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 583 P.2d 403, 405, 35 St.Rep. 1733, c i t i n g , Mont. 1256, and Eschenburg v . Eschen- b u r g ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 247, 557 P.2d 1 0 1 4 , 1016, 33 St.Rep. 1198. I n t h e i n s t a n t case, no c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i s m a n i f e s t ; t h e r e h a s been no s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l assets r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e t o e i t h e r party. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d a s t o t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e second i s s u e , a f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e t r a n s c r i p t of p r o c e e d i n g s , w e f i n d t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s are based on 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 . It i s t r u e t h a t some of t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t are more p r o p e r l y c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and v i c e v e r s a , b u t a m i s l a b e l i n g such a s h a s o c c u r r e d h e r e w i l l n o t form t h e b a s i s f o r r e p u d i a t i n g t h e determinations of t h e District Court. Appellant has s u f f e r e d no s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e a s a r e s u l t of t h e m i s labeling. Such e r r o r i s h a r m l e s s and may n o t b e used t o d e f e a t t h e judgment. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i l l n o t b e r e - versed f o r harmless e r r o r , e.g., Halko v . Anderson ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 108 Mont. 588, 593, 93 P.2d 956, 959, and t h e c a u s e w i l l n o t be remanded i n t h o s e cases w h e r e i n t h e e v e n t u a l r e s u l t must b e t h e same. Green v . Green ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1235, 1237, 35 S t - R e p . 800. - Mont. -, 579 P. 2d The t h i r d i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e award o f maintenance and attorney fees t o M r s . Green. A c o u r t may g r a n t m a i n t e n a n c e f o r e i t h e r spouse only i f i t f i n d s t h a t t h e spouse seeking m a i n t e n a n c e meets two c o n d i t i o n s : (1) h e o r s h e l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t property t o provide f o r h i s o r her reasonable needs; and, (2) i s unable t o support himself o r h e r s e l f t h r o u g h a p p r o p r i a t e employment - i s t h e c u s t o d i a n o f a or c h i l d whose c o n d i t i o n o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s make i t a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t n o t be r e q u i r e d t o s e e k employment o u t s i d e t h e home. S e c t i o n 48-322 (1)( a ) , ( b ) , R.C.M. now s e c t i o n 40-4-203 (1)( a ) , ( b ) MCA. 1947, F u r t h e r m o r e , i n making t h e award, t h e c o u r t i s p r o h i b i t e d from c o n s i d e r i n g any m a r i t a l misconduct o f t h e p a r t i e s , b u t must c o n s i d e r t h e following: " t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g maintenance, including m a r i t a l property apportioned t o him, and h i s a b i l i t y t o meet h i s n e e d s i n d e p e n d e n t l y , i n c l u d i n g t h e e x t e n t t o which a p r o v i s i o n f o r s u p p o r t o f a c h i l d l i v i n g w i t h t h e p a r t y i n c l u d e s a sum f o r t h a t p a r t y a s custodian; " t h e time necessary t o a c q u i r e s u f f i c i e n t education o r t r a i n i n g t o e n a b l e t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g maintenance t o f i n d a p p r o p r i a t e employment; " t h e standard of l i v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d during t h e m a r riage; " t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e marriage; " t h e a g e , and t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e s p o u s e s e e k i n g maintenance; and " t h e a b i l i t y of t h e s p o u s e from whom m a i n t e n a n c e i s s o u g h t t o m e e t h i s n e e d s w h i l e m e e t i n g t h o s e of t h e s p o u s e s e e k i n g maintenance. " S e c t i o n 48-322 ( 2 ) ( a )(f) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-203 ( 2 ) ( a )- ( f ) MCA. I n t h i s case, t h e D i s t r i c t Court t w i c e r e f e r s t o t h e m a i n t e n a n c e award: "18. The Respondent s h o u l d pay and t h e P e t i t i o n e r i s awarded t h e sum of $500.00 p e r month f o r t h e c a r e and s u p p o r t o f P e t i t i o n e r b e g i n n i n g J u n e 1, 1977, and t h r o u g h t h e month of J a n u a r y 1978 f o r a t o t a l sum of $4,000.00." " 3 . T h a t P e t i t i o n e r w i t h no f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n p a s t h i g h s c h o o l , h a v i n g no work e x p e r i e n c e d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e o f n o t e , s u f f e r i n g from a p r o g r e s s i v e d i s a b l i n g d i s e a s e of u l c e r a t i v e c o l i t u s a s d i a g n o s e d by Respondent, and u n a b l e t o h o l d g a i n f u l employment g r e a t e r t h a n s e v e r a l s h i f t s p e r week a s a b a r t e n d e r and s h a l l e x p e r i e n c e a low and r e d u c i n g r a t e of p e r s o n a l income h e r e a f t e r . " Based on t h e l a t t e r , a f i n d i n g m i s l a b e l e d a c o n c l u s i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had ample f o u n d a t i o n f o r making t h e s h o r t t e r m maintenance award and d i d s o i n s u f f i c i e n t compliance w i t h s t a t u t o r y mandate. S e c t i o n 48-327, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-110 MCA, states: "The c o u r t from t i m e t o t i m e a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s o f b o t h p a r t i e s may o r d e r a p a r t y t o pay a r e a s o n a b l e amount f o r t h e c o s t t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y o f m a i n t a i n i n g o r d e f e n d i n g any p r o c e e d i n g und e r t h i s a c t and f o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n c l u d i n g sums f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h e commencement of t h e p r o c e e d i n g o r a f t e r e n t r y of judgment. The c o u r t may o r d e r t h a t t h e amount b e p a i d d i r e c t l y t o t h e a t t o r n e y , who may e n f o r c e t h e o r d e r i n h i s name." A s t o t h e award o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found: "19. T h a t Respondent s h o u l d pay toward t h e P e t i t i o n e r ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s and t h e P e t i t i o n e r i s h e r e by awarded t h e sum o f $1,500.00 a s f o r and towards t h e P e t i t i o n e r ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n t h i s matter." "11. The Respondent s h o u l d b e o r d e r e d and i s h e r e b y r e q u i r e d t o pay t h e sum of $1,500.00 towards t h e P e t i t i o n e r ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s of s u i t i n c u r r e d . " The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s " a t r a i n e d , l i c e n s e d and p r a c t i c i n g m e d i c a l d o c t o r , a g e 53, w i t h o u t any c l a i m e d p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l impairment, w i t h e a r n i n g s of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $6,000.00 p e r month" who " s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o have a h i g h r a t e of p e r s o n a l income." The record supports these determinations. In contrast, the w i f e , who had no f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n beyond h i g h s c h o o l and no s i g n i f i c a n t employment e x p e r i e n c e d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , s u f f e r s from u l c e r a t i v e c o l i t i s and i s u n a b l e t o h o l d g a i n f u l employment o t h e r t h a n working s e v e r a l s h i f t s a s a bartender. H e r income nowhere a p p r o a c h e s t h a t of a p p e l - l a n t and, a s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found, i t w i l l g r a d u a l l y d i m i n i s h a s s h e a g e s and t h e d i s e a s e p r o g r e s s e s . Clearly t h e c o u r t considered t h e f i n a n c i a l resources of both p a r t i e s . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n award of $1500 toward payment o f h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s d o e s n o t a p p e a r s o i n e q u i t a b l e a s t o mandate r e v e r s a l . W e have h e l d , however, t h a t e v i d e n c e must be i n t r o d u c e d t o s u p p o r t a n award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . As stated i n State Highway Comm'n v . Marsh ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont. 43, 35 St.Rep. 105, 1 1 0 , ". . . An - 575 P.2d 38, , award of a t t o r n e y f e e s must b e based on a h e a r i n g a l l o w i n g f o r o r a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x h i b i t s , and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s examine i n which t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s claimed i s demonstrated. (1978) Mont. , . ." A s i n M a r r i a g e o f Barron 580 P.2d 936, 938, 35 St.Rep. 891, 894 : "We f i n d a l a c k of e v i d e n c e t h a t would s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f C r n c e v i c h v . Georgetown Rec. Corp. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 113, 541 P.2d 56, and F i r s t S e c u r i t y Bank of Bozeman v . Tholkes ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 422, 547 P.2d 1328, t o s u p p o r t t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e judgment." A s i n B a r r o n and H o l l i n g e r v . McMichael , 580 P.2d 927, 35, St.Rep. (1978), Mont. 856, t h e c a u s e must b e remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s . F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t complains o f e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t No. 4 , used t o show t h e income of t h e R i v e r s i d e B a r where r e s p o n d e n t w a s working. Appellant o b j e c t e d t o i t s a d m i s s i o n on t h e grounds (1) t h a t M r s . Green c o u l d t e s t i f y t o t h e matters c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n ; ( 2 ) t h a t h e had no o p p o r t u n i t y t o examine t h e bookkeeper who p r e p a r e d i t ; ( 3 ) t h a t i t had no r e l a t i o n t o t h e c a s e ; and ( 4 ) t h a t i t was v e r y m i s l e a d i n g . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e e x h i b i t was b e i n g a d m i t t e d o n l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e of showing t h e w i f e ' s n e t income. Immediately p r i o r t o i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n , I r e n e Green t e s t i f i e d t w i c e , w i t h o u t any o b j e c t i o n , a s t o t h e income s h e r e c e i v e d from t h e b a r d u r i n g a n eight-month p e r i o d i n 1977. Thus, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was b e f o r e t h e c o u r t f o r i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n even b e f o r e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e exhibit. W need n o t d e c i d e whether t h e r e was e r r o r i n t h e e a d m i s s i o n of t h i s e x h i b i t , f o r even were t h e r e e r r o r , i t w a s not prejudicial t o appellant, affecting h i s substantial r i g h t s s o a s t o b e made t h e b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l . Harmless e r r o r w i l l n o t b e made t h e b a s i s f o r M.R.Civ.P. r e v e r s a l , e.g., a t 959. Rule 6 1 , Halko v . Anderson, 108 Mont. a t 593, 9 3 P.2d F o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o b e r e v e r s e d f o r improp- e r l y a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e , s u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c e t o t h e comp l a i n i n g p a r t y must b e shown. states t h a t " Rule 103, Mont.R.Evid., [ e l r r o r may n o t be p r e d i c a t e d upon a r u l i n g which a d m i t s o r e x c l u d e s e v i d e n c e u n l e s s a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of t h e p a r t y i s a f f e c t e d . . ." A p p e l l a n t h a s made no show- i n g t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t h a s been a f f e c t e d t o h i s d e t r i ment s o a s t o w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l . The judgment i s a f f i r m e d , e x c e p t a s n o t e d above r e g a r d i n g remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . We concur: ~ ~ Chief Justice &$ \ . - . ,' I b w .\' \ ! Justices m y & --- , - i' : q q

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.