GRANT v GRANT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12679 I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A F H F OTN 1974 BERNICE Q. GRANT, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - HARRY H. GRANT, Defendant and Appellant. 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 , Honorable W. W. Lessley and Honorable Nat A l l e n , Judges p r e s i d i n g . Counse 1 o f Record : For Appellant : Small, C u m i n s , Hatch and Gregory Jackson, Helena, Montana Gregory Jackson argued and C a r l Hatch appeared, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Landoe, Gary and Donald E. White, Bozeman, Montana Joseph B. Gary argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: FEB '; 9 1975 November 20, 1974 FEB 1 9 1975 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a d i v o r c e judgment e n t e r e d September 1 0 , 1973, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County. The a p p e a l i s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment awarding t h e w i f e a l i m o n y , c h i l d s u p p o r t , a t t o r n e y f e e s and p r o p e r t y . The c o u r t awarded t h e w i f e a d i v o r c e and c u s t o d y of f o u r minor c h i l d r e n ; $100 p e r month alimony, $400 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t and $400 a t t o r n e y f e e s . I t f u r t h e r awarded t h e w i f e a l o t owned j o i n t l y ; o n e h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e back wages owed t h e husband by I n t e r c o u n t y Development C o r p o r a t i o n ; t h e 1970 Mercury a u t o m o b i l e j o i n t l y owned, and an a n t i q u e b a r . The c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e husband t o c a r r y t h e n e c e s s a r y h e a l t h and m e d i c a l i n s u r a n c e f o r and on b e h a l f o f t h e w i f e and t h e minor c h i l d r e n and t o pay a l l 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 i n c u r r e d by t h e w i f e and minor c h i l d r e n . Husband was a l s o o r d e r e d t o pay t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e d e b t s and l i a b i l i t i e s c u r r e n t l y due and owing a s a r e s u l t of t h e marriage. . The w i f e was awarded t h e p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n s and household f u r n i s h i n g s of t h e p a r t i e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n of c l o t h i n g o f t h e minor c h i l d r e n . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t i n 1971 husband e a r n e d $14,000 and i n 1972 he e a r n e d $15,000. H e i s now employed a t Employment Link and n e t s $660 p e r month. H e c l a i m s he p e r s o n a l l y n e e d s $100 p e r month f o r r e n t and $100 p e r month f o r f o o d ; a n d , t h a t he i s i n need of a c a r f o r h i s employment; t h a t i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e amount o f money he now makes, he i s u n a b l e t o pay a l l t h e f a m i l y d e b t s and s t i l l make t h e $500 p e r month a l i m o n y - c h i l d payments. support The husband a l s o c l a i m s h e l a c k s t h e n e c e s s a r y t r a i n i n g and e d u c a t i o n t o o b t a i n a b e t t e r p a y i n g j o b , and t h e j o b he now h a s i s t h e b e s t employment a v a i l a b l e t o him a t t h i s t i m e . The w i f e h a s had s e v e r a l q u a r t e r s of c o l l e g e , h a s been employed a t v a r i o u s j o b s and h a s been l i c e n s e d a s a n u r s i n g home a d m i n i s t r a t o r , such l i c e n s e has expired. She i s n o t p r e s e n t l y employed b u t i s s e e k i n g employment t h a t w i l l n e t more t h a n $300, t h e amount n e c e s s a r y f o r baby s i t t e r f e e s . Husband p a i d o n l y $300 of t h e $500 a l i m o n y - c h i l d s u p p o r t payment f o r August and o n l y $100 i n September. O October 1 2 , n 1973, h e f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l of t h e f i n a l judgment. Contempt p r o c e e d i n g s and a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e were b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e husband and s e t f o r h e a r i n g October 1 5 , 1973. A t t h e hearing t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n and h u s b a n d ' s c o u n s e l withdrew from t h e c a s e . I t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e w i f e h a s been g i v e n w e l f a r e a s s i s - t a n c e and c h a r i t y from n e i g h b o r s and f r i e n d s . The husband main- t a i n e d h e c o u l d n o t pay $500 p e r month o u t o f h i s income, w i t h h i s obligations. The d i s t r i c t judge a t t h i s p o i n t s a i d : t o modify t h i s d e c r e e r i g h t now." " I am r e a d y and t h e n f u r t h e r s a i d i t would c o s t $1500 t o r e v e r s e h i s c o u r t by a p p e a l . A m i n u t e e n t r y and o r d e r were e n t e r e d October 1 5 , 1973 h o l d i n g husband i n contempt and o r d e r i n g him t o p u r g e h i m s e l f by p a y i n g $250 on o r b e f o r e October 1 8 , 1973 and a l i k e sum on t h e f i r s t day of e a c h month t h e r e a f t e r . Husband r e t a i n e d new c o u n s e l October 2 4 , 1973 and on t h a t day t h e new c o u n s e l d i s q u a l i f i e d t h e p r e s i d i n g judge and f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l o f b o t h t h e judgment of September 10 and October 1 5 , 1973. T h e r e a f t e r , on November 23, 1973, husband f i l e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t t o c l a r i f y t h e judgment d a t e d October 1 5 , 1973. The d i s q u a l i f i e d judge c a l l e d i n a judge from a n o t h e r d i s t r i c t on November 28, 1973 and t h a t judge a c c e p t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n on December 3 , 1973. A p p e l l a n t husband b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l from b o t h judgments and p r e s e n t s t h e s e t h r e e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w : 1. Were t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e c o u r t r e g a r d i n g a l i m o n y , s u p p o r t , and p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t j u s t i f i e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ? 2. fees? Did t h e c o u r t err i n awarding p l a i n t i f f w i f e a t t o r n e y 3. Are t h e Montana s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g t h e award o f alimony and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n d i v o r c e a c t i o n s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ? Rule 38, M.R.App.Civ.P., r e q u i r e s t h a t when t h e s t a t e o f Montana o r i t s a g e n c i e s o r employees a r e n o t p a r t i e s t o a s u i t , t h e a p p e l l a n t must, upon f i l i n g t h e r e c o r d , g i v e immedi a t e n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g t o t h e Supreme C o u r t of t h e e x i s t e n c e of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s , s p e c i f y i n g t h e s e c t i o n of t h e c o d e o r c h a p t e r of t h e s e s s i o n law t o be c o n s t r u e d s o t h a t t h e C o u r t c a n n o t i f y t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l of t h e s t a t e of Montana. Fail- u r e t o comply w i t h t h i s r u l e p r e v e n t s t h e n o t i c e from b e i n g g i v e n t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and t h e r e f o r e he h a s no o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p e a r and defend t h e a c t s of t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t proceed t o answer t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s a s Rule 3 8 , M.R.App.Civ.P., was n o t followed. The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i s n o t e x t e n s i v e and p o r t r a y s t h e g e n e r a l problems found i n d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s where t h e r e a r e minor c h i l d r e n and n o t enough money t o s a t i s f y t h e n e e d s of a l l p a r t i e s and hence no s o l u t i o n i s g o i n g t o be e n t i r e l y s a t i s - f a c t o r y t o t h e p a r t i e s inasmuch as s u c h s o l u t i o n s under t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s j u s t do n o t e x i s t . W e a r e bound i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g minor c h i l d r e n t o l o o k f o r a s o l u t i o n which w i l l s e r v e t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s , a s i s done i n awarding c u s t o d y i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , s e c t i o n 91-4515, 1947. R.C.M. There a r e a number of r e p o r t e d c a s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e same p r i n c i p l e by t h i s C o u r t d u r i n g 1974. W f i n d no a b u s e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e e f i r s t award of a d o l l a r amount t o t h e f a m i l y of $500 p e r month based on t h e needs of f o u r minor c h i l d r e n . W a l s o recognize e t h a t t h e f a t h e r a p p a r e n t l y c a n n o t pay t h a t amount a t t h i s t i m e a s t h e t r i a l judge found i n t h e second p r o c e e d i n g and reduced t h e amount t o $250 p e r month f o r t h e i r s u p p o r t u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e c o u r t . T h e r e f o r e , we h o l d t h e o r i g i n a l judgment e n t e r e d September 1 0 , 1973 t o have been m o d i f i e d by t h e judgment e n t e r e d October 1 5 , 1973, which p r o v i d e s a monthly payment o f $250 f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e minor c h i l d r e n u n t i l a f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , based on a change of c i r c u m s t a n c e s from t h o s e t h a t e x i s t i n t h e record before t h i s Court. attorney f e e s f o r t h i s appeal. The w i f e i s awarded $200 I n view of t h e f i n a n c i a l con- d i t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l s c h e d u l e payment t o conform t o t h e a b i l i t y of t h e husband t o make s u i t a b l e payments. # W e concur: . .- C 1 I . . - L - & h & c - L : - - * h L -' 3 - ~ - & I Justices I ----- Justice

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.