WILSON v WILSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14935 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 LORETTA WILSON, Petitioner and Respondent, VS. KENT EUGENE WILSON, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Larry W. Moran argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Kommers, Lineberger and Johnstone, Bozeman, Montana Gene I. Brown argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: January 18, 1980 k t 3 6- ax? Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . his i s a n a p p e a l by Kent Eugene Wilson from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f 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 i n and f o r G a l l a t i n County, t h e Honorable W. W. Lessley presiding, which g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t L o r e t t a Wilson f o r a d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e , 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 , s u p p o r t of s a i d minor c h i l d , and a d i v i s i o n of property . The p a r t i e s m e t i n s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a i n 1962 a t which t i m e appellant w a s a d e n t i s t serving a s a captain i n the military. When r e s p o n d e n t became p r e g n a n t , t h e p a r t i e s d e c i d e d t o o b t a i n a Mexican m a r r i a g e on t h e a d v i c e o f a p p e l lant' s attorney. Arrangements w e r e made by s a i d a t t o r n e y and on O c t o b e r 3 , 1962, t h e p a r t i e s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a marr i a g e ceremony a t a n a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e i n T i j u a n a , Mexico. N e i t h e r p a r t y h a s any documentation o f t h i s m a r r i a g e , and a t t o r n e y s a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f a p p e l l a n t were l a t e r u n a b l e t o f i n d any r e c o r d of t h e m a r r i a g e i n Mexico. Respondent w a s a l s o u n s u c c e s s f u l i n a s u b s e q u e n t a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n documentation of t h e m a r r i a g e i n Mexico. A f t e r t h e Mexican ceremony, t h e p a r t i e s r e t u r n e d t o s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a b u t t h e y never cohabitated. A p p e l l a n t r e t u r n e d t o t h e F o r t MacArthur d e n t a l b a s e where h e w a s s t a t i o n e d i n San P e d r o , w h i l e r e s p o n d e n t r e t u r n e d t o l i v e i n Long Beach. Appellant d i d n o t pay r e s p o n d e n t ' s r e n t o r food e x p e n s e s o r o t h e r w i s e s u p p o r t h e r , nor d i d s h e e v e r r e c e i v e a m i l i t a r y a l l o t m e n t a s a d e p e n d a n t spouse. Respondent was working a t t h i s t i m e . There remains a d i s p u t e a s t o whether t h e p a r t i e s e v e r considered themselves married. N e v e r t h e l e s s , a p p e l l a n t took r e s p o n d e n t t o F o r t MacAurthur where h e r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t s h e w a s h i s w i f e and o b t a i n e d a m i l i t a r y I . D . i l e g e s f o r her. and m e d i c a l p r i v - I n December o f 1962, two months a f t e r t h e t r i p t o Mexico, a p p e l l a n t r e s i g n e d h i s m i l i t a r y commission and l e f t t h e S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a . H e had t o l d r e s p o n d e n t t h a t h e was g o i n g o n a h u n t i n g t r i p f o r a c o u p l e o f weeks. Subsequently, respondent l o c a t e d a p p e l l a n t i n Indiana. The p a r t i e s ' c h i l d was b o r n o n A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 6 3 , and o n J u l y 7, 1964, r e s p o n d e n t s o u g h t and o b t a i n e d a p a t e r n i t y d e c r e e a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t i n t h e E l k h a r t (Indiana) C i c u i t Court. The d e c r e e s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n " o u t o f wedlock" and i t o r d e r e d a p p e l l a n t t o pay $65.33 p e r month i n c h i l d support. A p p e l l a h t h a s made t h e s e payments s i n c e t h e d a t e of t h e decree. I n contemplation of h i s marriage t o h i s p r e s e n t w i f e and b e c a u s e h e w a s u n s u r e o f h i s m a r i t a l s t a t u s , a p p e l l a n t i n i t i a t e d p r o c e e d i n g s i n 1966 f o r a n a n n u l m e n t o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a d e c r e e o f d i v o r c e from r e s p o n d e n t . This s u i t was f i l e d i n t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f L i n c o l n County i n t h e S t a t e o f Washington, where a p p e l l a n t r e s i d e d . These p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e d r o p p e d when r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a c r o s s complaint. Appellant t e s t i f i e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t he d r o p p e d t h e s u i t b e c a u s e h e had been a d v i s e d by h i s a t t o r n e y t h a t t h e r e was no m a r r i a g e and t h e r e f o r e no need t o o b t a i n a n annulment o r d i v o r c e . N o t h i n g f u r t h e r was done by e i t h e r p a r t y u n t i l t h e p r e s e n t s u i t was f i l e d by r e s p o n d e n t i n t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t o n November 30, 1978. A p p e l l a n t has been a r e s i d e n t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana s i n c e 1971. H e i s an o r t h o d o n t i s t a n d h i s a n n u a l income f o r 1978 was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $60,000. I n a d d i t i o n h e i s p u r c h a s i n g a r e s i d e n c e and a n o f f i c e b u i l d i n g and h a s o t h e r a s s e t s . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s c a p a b l e o f p a y i n g t h e s u p p o r t payments o r d e r e d by t h e District Court. Respondent i s employed i n Long Beach, C a l i f o r n i a a s a darkroom t e c h n i c i a n w i t h a take-home pay o f $238 e v e r y two weeks. She i s a d o m i c i l i a r y and a r e s i d e n t o f C a l i f o r n i a . Other than h e r c o u r t appearance i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , she has n e v e r been i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana. The same i s t r u e o f t h e minor c h i l d , Kentanne Mary Wilson, who i s now s i x t e e n y e a r s P r i o r t o t h e t r i a l o f t h i s c a s e s h e had n e v e r s e e n h e r old. natural father. The minor c h i l d was b o r n w i t h a c o n g e n i t a l h i p problem and h a s numerous o t h e r m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s . Her m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s have been c o n s i d e r a b l e . A p p e l l a n t , Kent Eugene W i l s o n , s p e c i a l l y a p p e a r e d c h a l lenging the D i s t r i c t Court's jurisdiction. The c h a l l e n g e was o v e r r u l e d , and t h e case w a s h e a r d on i t s m e r i t s by t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e o n May 21, 1979. On J u n e 1 8 , 1979 f i n d i n g s o f f a c t w e r e e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n i n g (1) t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d i n T i j u a n a , Mexico on O c t o b e r 3, 1962; ( 2 ) t h a t a p p e l l a n t d e s e r t e d r e s p o n d e n t i n December 1962; t h a t t h e marriage i s i r r e t r i e v a b l y broken; (3) ( 4 ) t h a t respondent i s a f i t and p r o p e r p e r s o n t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e minor child; ( 5 ) t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s r e f u s e d t o s u p p o r t t h e minor c h i l d e x c e p t f o r t h e payment o f t h e sum o f $65.33 p e r month a s o r d e r e d by t h e E l k h a r t ( I n d i a n a ) C i r c u i t C o u r t o r d e r d a t e d J u l y 7, 1964; ( 6 ) t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s a c c u m u l a t e d p r o p e r t y and i s c a p a b l e o f p a y i n g t h e sum o f $200 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e minor c h i l d u n t i l s h e r e a c h e s t h e a g e o f m a j o r i t y ; and ( 7 ) t h a t r e s p o n d e n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a n award o f a p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y a c c u m u l a t e d by a p p e l l a n t d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t s h e d i d n o t a s s i s t i n t h e a c c ~ I n u l a t i o no f property. On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and e n t e r e d judgment ( a ) t h a t t h e marriage of t h e p a r t i e s is dissolved; (b) t h a t r e s p o n d e n t be g r a n t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e minor c h i l d and t h a t a p p e l l a n t pay $200 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t t o g e t h e r w i t h p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e m e d i c a l and d e n t a l e x p e n s e s ; (c) t h a t r e s p o n d e n t b e awarded t h e sum o f $15,000, p l u s r e a s o n a b l e attorneys fees. I t i s from t h i s judgment t h a t t h e a p p e a l i s taken. Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r L o r e t t a W i l s o n ' s p e t i t i o n and e n t e r judgment (a) granting a d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e and ( b ) m o d i f y i n g t h e I n d i a n a s u p p o r t decree? 2. Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f a v a l i d m a r r i a g e between t h e p a r t i e s and t h e p r o p e r t y award t o respondent? The f i r s t i s s u e t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r L o r e t t a W i l s o n ' s p e t i t i o n and e n t e r judgment g r a n t i n g a d i s s o l u t i o n o f marriage. The I n d i a n a p a t e r n i t y s u i t e s t a b l i s h e d a p p e l l a n t a s t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s c h i l d and i t d e c r e e d s u p p o r t . A l t h o u g h t h e d e c r e e s t a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n " o u t o f wedlock", t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e Mexican m a r r i a g e w a s n o t l i t i g a t e d i n t h e I n d i a n a p a t e r n i t y s u i t , and i t i s n o t res j u d i c a t a on t h e question of t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s . I t i s n o t a question of c o l l a t e r a l estoppel, since the marital relations h i p of t h e p a r t i e s w a s n o t an e s s e n t i a l o r m a t e r i a l f a c t i n t h e p a t e r n i t y s u i t , n o r was t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e p a r t i e s determined i n t h a t a c t i o n . Western Mont. P r o d . Assn. v . ~ y d r o p o n i c s ,I n c . ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 1 5 7 , 410 P.2d 937. The m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e p a r t i e s was i m m a t e r i a l t o t h e p a t e r n i t y s u i t , b e c a u s e t h e same r e l i e f , i - e . , c h i l d s u p p o r t , would have been d e c r e e d r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r m a r i t a l s t a t u s . Ap- p e l l a n t ' s duty t o support existed irrespective of h i s marital s t a t u s , and h i s m a r i t a l s t a u s would n o t have been a d e f e n s e . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e p a r t i e s i s n o t r e l e v a n t o r m a t e r i a l t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e i s s u e s i n t h e p a t e r n i t y s u i t , where t h e s o l e i s s u e i s p a t e r n i t y and t h e c o n c o m i t a n t o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t . v . P a t t o n ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 1 0 2 Mont. State 51, 55 P.2d 1290, 1293, 104 ALR 76 ( d e c i d e d u n d e r f o r m e r s t a t u t e ; f o r p r e s e n t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , see Montana Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t , MCA, e t seq.). § 40-6-101, " I n bastardy proceedings, t h e only i s s u e i s whether o r n o t t h e accused i s t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . Annot. . ." 104 ALR 84. I t may b e t r u e t h a t t h e I n d i a n a C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n " o u t o f wedlock" encompasses a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e n e v e r m a r r i e d , s i n c e Montana c a s e s recognize t h a t " a decree of t h e c o u r t s t a n d s a s an a b s o l u t e f i n a l i t y ' n o t merely a s t o t h e conclusions expressed, b u t a s t o everything d i r e c t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y involved i n reaching them. '" (1979) Link v . S t a t e e x r e l . Department o f F i s h and G a m e - Mont. - 591 P.2d 214, 219, 36 S t . R e p . , 355, 361, q u o t i n g M i s s o u l a L i g h t & Water Co. v . Hughes ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 106 Mont. 355, 366, 77 P.2d 1041, 1047. The e n t i r e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d , however, had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e i s s u e s i n t h e I n d i a n a p a t e r n i t y s u i t . Therefore, d e s p i t e t h a t c o u r t ' s pronouncement t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n " o u t o f wedlock", t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e p a r t i e s was n o t " n e c e s s a r i l y l i t i g a t e d and d e t e r m i n e d " i n t h e p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n . Hence r e s p o n d e n t i s n o t c o l l a t e r a l l y e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g h e r m a r r i a g e t o a p p e l l a n t , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n h e r p e t i t i o n and g r a n t a d i s s o l u t i o n o f marriage. The f a c t t h a t t h e 1964 I n d i a n a p a t e r n i t y d e c r e e i s l o n g s t a n d i n g a n d h a s n o t been a p p e a l e d d o e s n o t a l t e r t h i s conclusion. The r u l e i s t h a t " a judgment n o t a p p e a l e d from i s c o n c l u s i v e between t h e p a r t i e s a s t o a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d by p l e a d i n g s a c t u a l l y l i t i g a t e d and a d j u d g e d a s shown on t h e f a c e o f t h e judgment and r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r m i n e d - -d e r t o i n or reach t h -- e c o n c l u s i o n announced." L i n k , s u p r a , 591 P.2d a t 219 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; Simon v . Simon ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 1 9 3 , 461 P.2d 851, 852-853; B u t l e r v . Brownlee ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 152 Mont. 453, 451 P.2d 836, 838; D o u l l v . W o h l s c h l a g e r ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 354, 377 P.2d 758, 764; M i s s o u l a L i g h t & Water Co. v . Hughes ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 106 Mont. 355, 77 P.2d 1 0 4 1 , 1047. The q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d was n o t " a c t u a l l y l i t i g a t e d and a d j u d g e d .. . and r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r - mined i n o r d e r t o r e a c h t h e c o n c l u s i o n announced" i n t h e Indiana p a t e r n i t y s u i t . With t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e marriage resolved i n favor of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, t h e r e i s l i t t l e else t o q u a r r e l a b o u t . Jurisdiction t o hear t h e d i v o r c e g i v e s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l t h e rest of t h e p r o b l e m s o f c u s t o d y , s u p p o r t and d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y . S e c t i o n s 40-4-202, 40-4-204, 40-4-208, MCA (1979). Both p a r t i e s have a d m i t t e d t o what t h e y b e l i e v e d t o b e a c e r e m o n i a l m a r r i a g e i n Mexico. The m a r r i a g e was a r r a n g e d by a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y a n d e a c h p a r t y h a s a c t e d a t l e a s t o n c e as t h o u g h t h e m a r r i a g e w e r e v a l i d . The r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e and a l l e g e d a l e g a l marriage. he appellant failed to challenge this pleading. If he so desired, he should have pleaded his contentions on the status of the marriage by an affirmative pleading in defense. See Rule 8(c), M.R.Civ.P. The respondant testified that she participated in a regular marriage ceremony at an attorney's office in Tijuana, Mexico. The second issue involved in this appeal is whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the District Court's finding of a valid marriage between the parties and its,property award to respondent. Appellant has not con- tested the reasonableness of the $200 per month award for child support. The evidence presented at the trial of this case has been discussed and will not be repeated here. The defendant-appellant had the burden to overcome the allegation of a legal marriage and failed to do so. This leaves the property awarded to the respondent at issue. Appellant first challenges the jurisdiction of the court to do anything, then criticizes the manner in which the award was made. His criticism is purportedly based on the lack of evidence to support any award since the parties had never lived together, the husband had never contributed to the support of the wife, and the wife had never aided in the building of the marital estate. This may all be true, however, the District Court's jurisdiction is very broad in this area and it is evident the court wanted to award something. The percentage division was not disproportionate under all the circumstances. The court in its findings seemed to be aware of the resources of the appellant and the problems that exist and made a nominal award. There being sufficient credible evidence to support the District Court's decision, the judgment is affirmed. / / , / f Justice W e concur. TA4pfc e %& Chief J u s t i - > t 1 5Justices /+ / Ya5.,/ /

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.