FAUTSCH v FAUTSCH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12719 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1974 JEANETTE R. FAUTSCH, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - ROMAN A . FAUTSCH, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : R i c h a r d J . Conklin a r g u e d , White S u l p h u r S p r i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent: Huppert and S w i n d l e h u r s t , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana J o s e p h T. S w i n d l e h u r s t a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : SF 8 4 1975 September 1 9 , 1974 JAN 2 4 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 by t h e husband from t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t and d i v i s i o n p o r t i o n o f a f i n a l judgment of d i v o r c e g r a n t e d t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , County of P a r k , on November 27, 1973. The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d December 3 , 1949. The w i f e w a s a t e a c h e r and c o n t i n u e d t o t e a c h f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e y e a r s u n t i l 1953, t h e n was o u t of t h e p r o f e s s i o n u n t i l 1958. During t h i s t i m e two c h i l d r e n were born, a s o n , a g e 17 y e a r s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e , and a d a u g h t e r who w a s k i l l e d i n a f a m i l y a u t o mobile a c c i d e n t i n 1965. The w i f e h a s n o t t a u g h t s c h o o l s i n c e t h e d a u g h t e r w a s k i l l e d i n 1965. The husband i s a sawyer f o r a lumber m i l l and a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e , on a s e v e n day work week, e a r n i n g $1,000 p e r month based on a n h o u r l y r a t e . During t h e m a r r i a g e t h e husband worked a t odd j o b s i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s r e g u l a r employment and b o t h p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t h e i r wages t o t h e j o i n t a s s e t s under t h e p r i n c i p a l c o n t r o l of t h e w i f e . I n 1965 t h e p a r t i e s a c q u i r e d The S l e e p i n g G i a n t Motel i n L i v i n g s t o n , Montana. The p u r c h a s e p r i c e w a s $30,000 and t h e b a l a n c e d u e a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e w a s $7,348.55. This p u r c h a s e w a s made w i t h j o i n t e a r n i n g s and a l o a n of $3,000 from t h e w i f e ' s mother. I n 1972, t h e m o t e l g r o s s e d $10,056. Based on i t s e a r n i n g s , t h e w i f e e s t i m a t e d t h e m o t e l ' s v a l u e a t $30,000$35,000. The husband e s t i m a t e d t h e v a l u e of t h e m o t e l a t $75,000. However, t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h e m o t e l was l i s t e d f o r s a l e a t $100,000. The p a r t i e s f o r m e r l y owned a home i n L i v i n g s t o n , Montana, which had been s o l d . A t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce, t h e r e was $6,235.36 owed t o t h e p a r t i e s from t h e b u y e r s . The w i f e had i n v e s t e d $10,000 i n h e r name o n l y i n a b u s i n e s s known as Chico Hot S p r i n g s and had a p p r c x i m a t e l y $1,900 i n a savings account. She t e s t i f i e d t h e s e monies were p a r t of a s e t t l e m e n t from t h e a c c i d e n t which r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e a t h of t h e i r daughter. The w i f e c o n t e n d s s h e was p h y s i c a l l y u n a b l e t o t e a c h a f t e r 1965 because of i n j u r i e s and c h i l d b e a r i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s , a l t h o u g h s h e h a s o p e r a t e d t h e motel from t h e t i m e it w a s purchased. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h r e e y e a r s b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e t h e husband s t o p p e d c o n t r i b u t i n g h i s c h e c k s t o t h e j o i n t a c c o u n t s of t h e p a r t i e s . However, t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s t h a t a b o u t t h i s t i m e s h e broke o f f t h e m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p and t o o k up r e s i d e n c e a l o n e i n a new mobile home s h e purchased w i t h j o i n t f u n d s , t h e v a l u e o f which was n e v e r r e v e a l e d and t h e t i t l e was p l a c e d i n h e r name. She a l s o purchased a c a r w i t h j o i n t f u n d s and p l a c e d t i t l e i n h e r name. The make and model of t h e c a r was n o t r e - vealed i n t h e proceedings. The husband owns a 1966 Ford p i c k u p . Testimony a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h i s p e r i o d of t i m e b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e c o u l d have been c l o s e r t o two y e a r s t h a n t h r e e . During t h i s p e r i o d of t i m e u n t i l t h e h e a r i n g on t h e d i v o r c e , s h e s u p p o r t e d h e r s e l f and son from j o i n t f u n d s and m o t e l e a r n i n g s . The t e s t i m o n y i s a t b e s t c o n f u s e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' s a v i n g s a c c o u n t s and c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t s which were j o i n t a c c o u n t s . Account #I2604 w i t h t h e E h p i r e F e d e r a l Saving and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n , i n t h e name of J e a n e t t e R . & Roman F a u t s c h , a s t r u s t e e s f o r S t a n l e y 2 . F a u t s c h , t h e i r s o n , was c l o s e d on June 3 0 , 1972. b a l a n c e a t t h a t t i m e was $3,715.51. The The w i f e c l a i m s t h e a c c o u n t w a s c l o s e d , b u t immediately r e o p e n e d , t h e r e b y e l i m i n a t i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s name from t h e a c c o u n t . There was, however, no e v i d e n c e presented t o t h e c o u r t v e r i f y i n g t h e reopening, only a letter from t h e bank showing t h a t i t had been c l o s e d . Another s a v i n g s a c c o u n t , #7136, w a s c l o s e d a t Empire F e d e r a l Savings and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n , which was i n j o i n t t e n a n c y between t h e p a r t i e s . A t t h e t i m e i t was c l o s e d t h e b a l a n c e was $634.84. There was t e s t i m o n y from t h e w i f e t h a t t h e r e w a s $1,900 i n s a v i n g s a t Empire F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n . Whether a c c o u n t #7136 i s t h e a c c o u n t s h e i s r e f e r r i n g t o i s n o t made p l a i n from t h e evidence presented. The husband a l s o c l a i m s t h e r e i s a l o a n of $4,000 by t h e w i f e t o a r e l a t i v e from a j o i n t a c c o u n t i n a Spokane s a v i n g s a c c o u n t , i n t h e w i f e ' s name. Testimony a l s o r e v e a l s t h e g r o s s e a r n i n g s from t h e m o t e l i n 1972 may n o t be c o r r e c t , and t h e r e i s some c o n f u s i o n c o n c e r n ing t h e o r i g i n a l purchase p r i c e . The c o u r t awarded b o t h p a r t i e s a d i v o r c e ; c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d was awarded t o t h e mother w i t h $150 p e r month c h i l d support u n t i l majority. t o i t s indebtedness. The w i f e was awarded t h e m o t e l s u b j e c t The c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e husband t o p r o v i d e h o s p i t a l and m e d i c a l c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d and w i f e . The husband was awarded t h e b a l a n c e due on t h e house c o n t r a c t i n t h e amount of $6,235.56 and t h e c o u r t a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t i f t h e w i f e e v e r d e s i r e d t o s e l l t h e m o t e l t h e p r o c e e d s i n e x c e s s of $50,000 would be d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between t h e p a r t i e s . There i s no q u e s t i o n t h e husband d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e a n e q u a l s h a r e o r more t o t h e j o i n t a s s e t s accumulated d u r i n g a m a r r i a g e i n e x c e s s of 2 0 y e a r s . The c o u r t found n e i t h e r p a r t y t o be a t f a u l t i n awarding t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e . There i s no c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y a n u n e q u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e assets of t h e m a r r i a g e . before the court. Only t h e w i f e and husband t e s t i f i e d She c l a i m s t o have been i n j u r e d b e a r i n g h i s c h i l d r e n and i n t h e 1965 a c c i d e n t and t h i s seems t o be a b a s i s f o r preference. Yet, no i n d e p e n d e n t e v i d e n c e of h e r condition was produced nor c o u l d c o u n s e l e n l i g h t e n t h i s Court i n o r a l argument. Funds a r e c l a i m e d by t h e w i f e a s a r e s u l t of t h e 1965 a c c i d e n t b u t no s u b s t a n t i a l o r c l e a r e v i d e n c e was o f f e r e d t o support t h i s a s s e r t i o n . There seems t o have been an award f o r the wrongful death of the daughter, damages to the son and wife but no evidence of the amounts involved or the husband's interest in these awards. The testimony is clear that the wife handled the business accounts and assets for the family and she has not met her burden in accounting for them. The evidence in these areas is vague and confusing as well as in conflict. This Court will not disturb findings of the district court where supported and justified by substantial evidence. Judson, Administrator v. Anderson, 118 Mont. 106, 117, 165 P.2d 198. However, this Court cannot affirm a judgment where there is insufficient credible evidence to support it. We therefore affirm that portion of the judgment award- ing the parties a divorce and the wife custody of the minor child, but remand for further hearing the property settlement portion of the judgment. Specifically, a determination must be made of how much money was awarded to the parties for the death of their daughter caused by the 1965 automobile accident; how much of that amount was awarded the parties for a wrongful death action; and how much was awarded to members of the family individually for injuries suffered from the accident, and the husband's share of the wife's award. Expert medical testimony should be presented to the court demonstrating the exact nature of the wife's medical problem, and the extent of disability caused by these medical problems. There should be expert testimony as to the present value of The Sleeping Giant Motel, the trailer house, and automobile purchased by the wife from joint funds. There should also be some type of record offered to provide an accounting of the motel's income for the past three years. Finally, there must be a complete disclosure by both parties of the money each of them have in savings accounts, checking accounts, safety deposit boxes or whatever. All joint assets accumulated during the marriage and their disposition should be revealed to the court. The judgment of the district court granting the divorce and custody of the minor child is affirmed. The distribution of the property award by the court is reversed and remanded for further hearing not --,-I' A,,- . * 2 % -c L '6 -Lt2=2 Chief Justice Justices (j & ---, ! , , / - - A ^ & , ^ _ .?-
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.
