HAYWOOD v SEDILLO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12920 IN THE SUPRm COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 C R W. HAYWOOD, AL P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - CAROLE L. HAYWOOD SEDILLO, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : J u l i o K. Morales argued, Missoula , Montana For Respondent : Jordan, Cummings, S u l l i v a n & Baldassin, Missoula, Montana Lee A. Jordan argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: Decided : A p r i l 10, 1975 MAY 2 3 1975 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . 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. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t , C a r o l e L. S e d i l l o , f o r m e r l y C a r o l e Haywood, from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County, d e n y i n g h e r p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody. The p a r t i e s , C a r o l e S e d i l l o and C a r l W. Haywood, were m a r r i e d i n 1 9 6 6 i n F l a g s t a f f , Arizona. Two c h i l d r e n w e r e b o r n o f t h i s m a r r i a g e , C a r l David, born August 1 5 , 1968, and C h a r l e s W i l l a r d , born June 2 , 1970. M a r i t a l d i f f i c u l t i e s a r o s e between t h e p a r t i e s and t h e y s e p a r a t e d i n J a n u a r y 1973, w h i l e r e s i d i n g i n M i s s o u l a , Montana. C a r o l e moved t o F l a g s t a f f w i t h t h e c h i l d - r e n and l i v e d t h e r e w i t h h e r p a r e n t s u n t i l May 1 8 , 1973. On May 1 8 , 1973, an argument a r o s e between C a r o l e , C a r l and C a r o l e ' s parents. A s a r e s u l t of t h i s argument, C a r o l e c e a s e d l i v i n g w i t h h e r p a r e n t s , l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h h e r p a r e n t s , and began l i v i n g w i t h h e r p r e s e n t husband, Rudy S e d i l l o . C a r l t h e n brought t h e c h i l d r e n back t o M i s s o u l a . C a r l commenced d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s i n Missoula on J u n e 1 8 , 1973. Although C a r o l e was p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d i n Arizona w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t and summons, a d e f a u l t d e c r e e w a s e n t e r e d on J u l y 23, 1973, g r a n t i n g C a r l a n a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e , c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and s e t t l i n g t h e i r p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . A f t e r having been s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t and summons and p r i o r t o t h e e n t r y of d e f a u l t , C a r o l e r e t u r n e d t o M i s s o u l a and on t h e morning of J u l y 1 7 , 1973, i n t h e words o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t she : " s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y , and w i t h o u t t h e knowledge o r c o n s e n t of t h e p l a i n t i f f d i d , a g a i n s t t h e w i l l of t h e p l a i n t i f f , and by s t e a l t h and f o r c e t a k e t h e minor c h i l d r e n o f t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o from t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l and f o r c e f u l l y remove them from t h e b a b y - s i t t e r ' s c a r e which p l a i n t i f f had l e f t them w i t h when he went t o work * * *." C a r o l e removed t h e c h i l d r e n from t h e S t a t e of Montana. C a r l d i d n o t l e a r n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s whereabouts u n t i l two weeks l a t e r when, upon l e a r n i n g of t h e c u s t o d y award, C a r o l e l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h h e r p a r e n t s and a s k e d them t o c a l l C a r l . C a r l t h e n b r o u g h t t h e c h i l d r e n back t o Montana. C a r o l e m a r r i e d h e r p r e s e n t husband on A p r i l 1 9 , 1974. Shortly t h e r e a f t e r , Carole returned t o Missoula. p e t i t i o n t o modify c u s t o d y was f i l e d May 3 , 1974. h e a r i n g s were h e l d b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The i n s t a n t Two s e p a r a t e The f i r s t , h e l d May 1 4 , 1974, a t which C a r o l and h e r husband t e s t i f i e d , was c o n t i n u e d i n o r d e r t o p e r m i t C a r l t i m e t o t a k e d e p o s i t i o n s of persons i n Arizona. The second, a t which C a r l p r e s e n t e d h i s e v i d e n c e , was h e l d J u l y 8 , 1974. T h i s C o u r t h a s been p r o v i d e d w i t h a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e f i r s t h e a r i n g and a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e , p u r s u a n t t o Rule 9 ( c ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., of t h e second hearing. A t t h e c l o s e of t h e e v i d e n c e a t t h e second h e a r i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r u l e d from t h e bench i n t h e p r e s e n c e of c o u n s e l f o r b o t h p a r t i e s t h a t he was denying C a r o l e ' s p e t i t i o n . o r d e r w a s reduced t o w r i t i n g and f i l e d two d a y s l a t e r . The However, no n o t i c e o f e n t r y of judgment, a s r e q u i r e d by Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R. Civ.P., was e v e r s e r v e d upon C a r o l e . C a r o l e f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r on September 6 , 1974. Three i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l : (1) Whether t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d w i t h i n t h e t i m e p e r m i t t e d by Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P.? (2) Whether C a r o l e i s e n t i t l e d t o c u s t o d y a s a m a t t e r o f law based upon t h e " t e n d e r y e a r s " presumption of s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. (3) 1947? Whether t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n i s b e s t s e r v e d by g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y t o C a r l ? A s a p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r , we must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e whether t h i s Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s appeal. App.Civ.P. Rule 5 , M.R. reads: "The t i m e w i t h i n which a n a p p e a l from a judgment o r a n o r d e r must be t a k e n s h a l l be 30 d a y s from t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , e x c e p t t h a t i n c a s e s where s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y o f judgment i s r e q u i r e d by Rule 77 ( d ) of t h e Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l Proc e d u r e t h e t i m e s h a l l be 30 d a y s from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment * * *." Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P., reads: "Within 1 0 d a y s a f t e r e n t r y of judgment i n a n a c t i o n i n which a n a p p e a r a n c e h a s been made, n o t i c e o f such e n t r y , t o g e t h e r w i t h a copy of s u c h judgment o r a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e and amount of r e l i e f and damages t h e r e b y g r a n t e d , s h a l l be s e r v e d by t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y upon t h e adverse party." The n o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d 60 d a y s a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r u l e d from t h e bench and 58 d a y s a f t e r t h e o r d e r w a s r e duced t o w r i t i n g and f i l e d . C a r l argues t h a t s i n c e both counsel had a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g and s i n c e t h e law d o e s n o t r e q u i r e i d l e a c t s , t h a t no n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was n e c e s s a r y and t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l l a p s e d . S e r v i c e of n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of judgment i s n o t an i d l e a c t . I n order t o provide c e r t a i n t y i n t h e law, some a r b i t r a r y p o i n t must be chosen from which t h e t i m e t o a p p e a l may r u n . Th,at p o i n t by t h e Montana Rules i s t h e d a t e o f s e r v i c e of t h e n o t i c e o f e n t r y of judgment. N n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment having been s e r v e d upon C a r o l e , o t h i s Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s appeal. I n summary, C a r o l e ' s c o n t e n t i o n s a r e t h a t s h e h a s , s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e , r e m a r r i e d and s e t t l e d down; t h a t s h e now h a s t h e t i m e t o be a f u l l - t i m e m o t h e r ; t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n want t o l i v e w i t h h e r ; a n d , t h a t o u t b u r s t s of v i o l e n c e on t h e p a r t o f C a r l show h e i s u n f i t t o have c u s t o d y . W e s h a l l examine t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t court : The e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s of b o t h Rudy and C a r l were Rudy i s f i n i s h i n g h i s c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n thoroughly explored. w i t h a major i n b u s i n e s s a c c o u n t i n g . He i s working f o r t h e post o f f i c e a s a mail c l e r k , full-time, attending night school part-time. the G . I . a t $4.73 p e r h o u r , w h i l e H e r e c e i v e s b e n e f i t s under B i l l of $261 a month w h i l e a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l , f o r which h e h a s 12 months l e f t , and a d i s a b i l i t y compensation from t h e Navy of $77 a month. Upon g r a d u a t i o n , h e i n t e n d s t o work f o r a n a c c o u n t i n g f i r m f o r two y e a r s and t h e n a t t e n d law s c h o o l . i s a f o r e s t e r by o c c u p a t i o n , e a r n i n g $1,200 a month. Carl A t t h e time of t h e second h e a r i n g , he had a new j o b w i t h P o t l a t c h C o r p o r a t i o n i n I d a h o , s c h e d u l e d t o s t a r t t h e f o l l o w i n g August, p a y i n g $1,500 a month. Much was made of t h e f a c t t h a t Rudy i s i n t h e p r o c e s s of buying h i s own t h r e e bedroom home. O r a l t e s t i m o n y and photo- g r a p h s were i n t r o d u c e d b e a r i n g on t h e neighborhoods of t h e homes of b o t h Rudy and C a r l . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was i n a p o s i t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e which w a s t h e b e t t e r environment f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . C a r o l e c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e i n g r e m a r r i e d and s e t t l e d down, s h e now h a s t h e t i m e t o be a f u l l - t i m e mother and g i v e t h e c h i l d r e n a normal f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p . The e v i d e n c e showed t h a t C a r l l e a v e s t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h b a b y - s i t t e r s w h i l e a t work. f i r s t t h e c h i l d r e n were l e f t a t t h e b a b y - s i t t e r ' s At residence, l a t e r C a r l o b t a i n e d a l i v e i n b a b y - s i t t e r s o t h a t t h e boys c o u l d be i n t h e i r own home. With h i s o l d j o b , C a r l w a s away from t h e boys t w e l v e n i g h t s a month. Although he a d m i t s h i s new j o b w i l l re- q u i r e some t r a v e l i n g , i t w i l l be f o r o n e day o n l y and h e w i l l have t o s t a y o v e r n i g h t o n l y o c c a s i o n a l l y . However, t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d a s t o any a c t i v i t i e s C a r o l e had w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n w a s d u r i n g t h e two d a y s i n J u l y 1973, when C a r o l e and Rudy p l a y e d a l i t t l e s o f t b a l l w i t h them, t o o k them t o bowling p r a c t i c e and t o o k them t o t h e D a i r y Queen. During t h e p e r i o d from J u l y 1973, t o May 1974, C a r o l e made no a t t e m p t t o s e e t h e c h i l d r e n and d i d n o t send them c a r d s o r g i f t s on t h e i r b i r t h d a y s , a t C h r i s t m a s , o r any o t h e r t i m e . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e record i s r e p l e t e w i t h e v i d e n c e of t h e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t C a r l and t h e boys p u r s u e d t o g e t h e r . Christina F r a n k e n f i e l d t e s t i f i e d C a r l spends more t i m e w i t h h i s c h i l d r e n t h a n any f a t h e r s h e h a s e v e r known; t h a t t h e y go everywhere w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r ; a n d , t h a t t h e r e i s good communication between t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r f a t h e r . Diane S a i l e r t e s t i f i e d C a r l d o e s e v e r y t h i n g w i t h t h e boys and t h a t h i s whole l i f e a p p e a r s t o i n volve t h e children. C a r o l e c o n t e n d s t h e c h i l d r e n want t o l i v e w i t h h e r , r a t h e r than t h e i r f a t h e r . I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s s h e and Rudy t e s t i - f i e d t h e boys, on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t o l d them t h e y wanted t o go with her. The e v i d e n c e a l s o showed t h a t i n t h e two weeks p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t h e a r i n g , C a r o l e v i s i t e d t h e boys n e a r l y e v e r y d a y and on e a c h o c c a s i o n b r o u g h t candy o r s m a l l p r e s e n t s i n a n a t t e m p t t o influence the children. The b a b y - s i t t e r o v e r h e a r d C a r o l e t e l l - i n g t h e boys t h a t i f anyone asked them who t h e y wanted t o go w i t h o r be w i t h , t h e y s h o u l d be s u r e and s a y t h e y wanted t o be w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r , b u t n o t t o r e p e a t t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n t o anyone, a s i t was t o be " t h e i r s e c r e t " . Many w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h e c h i l d r e n r a r e l y spoke of t h e i r mother and were i n d i f f e r e n t toward h e r when s h e was gone. The w i t n e s s e s r e l a t e d t h a t when C a r o l e was i n town t h e boys became n e r v o u s , e x c i t a b l e , i r r i t a b l e and e a s i l y u p s e t , t h e symptoms d i m i n i s h i n g once C a r o l e had gone. Much t e s t i m o n y was i n t r o d u c e d b e a r i n g on t h e mutual l o v e and a f f e c t i o n between C a r l and t h e boys. Diana D a n i e l s o n t e s t i f i e d t h e boys c o n s t a n t l y t a l k a b o u t t h e i r f a t h e r and d i s c u s s i n g r e a t d e t a i l t h e a c t i v i t i e s t h e y engage i n w i t h him and grow e x c i t e d when C a r l i s due home from work. C a r o l e a l l e g e s C a r l ' s o u t b u r s t s o f temper and p h y s i c a l I n her testimony a b u s e show t h a t he i s u n f i t t o have c u s t o d y . s h e a i l e g e d two i n s t a n c e s i n 1967 and 1970, where C a r l s t r u c k h e r and two i n s t a n c e s May 1 8 , 1973 and May 11, 1974, where C a r l had h e r around t h e neck. the latter incidents. C a r l gave a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e on The c r e d i b i l i t y of s u c h a l l e g a t i o n s w a s for the d i s t r i c t court. Even i f b e l i e v e d , t h e i n c i d e n t s d i d n o t r e l a t e t o the children. The w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t C a r l i s a firm d i s c i p l i n a r i a n , but loving. Carole h e r s e l f t e s t i f i e d t h a t C a r l had n e v e r m i s t r e a t e d t h e c h i l d r e n . N p u r p o s e would be s e r v e d i n r e c i t i n g f u r t h e r t h e e v i o d e n c e b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , some of which f a v o r e d C a r l , some of which f a v o r e d C a r o l e . A s can be s e e n from t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e t o f o r e r e c i t e d , t h e e v i d e n c e was n o t s o e q u a l t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o award c u s t o d y t o t h e mother p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947. There was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e award of c u s t o d y when t h a t e v i d e n c e i s viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o C a r l , t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . This Court w i l l s u s t a i n such d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t based upon s u b s t a n t i a l c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e . I n Eliason v. Eliason, 1 5 1 Mont. 409, 4 1 6 , 443 P.2d 884, t h i s C o u r t s a i d : "The t r i a l c o u r t , having o b s e r v e d and c o n s i d e r e d t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e w i t n e s s e s upon t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d , t h e i r manner of t e s t i f y i n g , t h e i r a p p a r e n t candor o r want of c a n d o r , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e testimony i t s e l f , i s i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n than t h i s C o u r t t o d e c i d e q u e s t i o n s of c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s and t h e weight t o be g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i mony. " The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f i r m e d . f chief Justice We concur: ................................. Justices

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.