JEROME v JEROME

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13664 IN THE SUPREI.IE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA JERRY T. JEROME, Petitioner and Respondent, DOROTHY S. JEROME, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Gord-on R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Dorothy Stevens, Pro Se, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Montana Cause submitted on briefs. Submitted: January 9, 1978 Decided: .FEB Filed: 1- 1978 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court : This i s an appeal from an order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Lewis and Clark County, g r a n t i n g a d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e marriage of Dorothy S. Jerome and J e r r y T . Jerome. The p o r t i o n s of t h e decree i n i s s u e a r e those r e l a t i n g t o c h i l d support, maintenance, and property d i s t r i b u t i o n . The record r e v e a l s t h e p a r t i e s were married December 11, 1952. Three c h i l d r e n were born of t h e marriage; only one, a 12 year o l d g i r l , i s s t i l l a minor. There i s no d i s p u t e t h a t Dorothy should have custody of t h i s minor c h i l d . J e r r y i s employed by Mountain B e l l Telephone Company and has an annual income of between $18,000 and $19,000 per y e a r , which i s approximately t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l he w i l l be a b l e t o reach i n h i s present position. Dorothy has worked b r i e f l y a t s e c r e t a r i a l types of p o s i t i o n s , b u t has g e n e r a l l y been a housewife f o r twenty-five years. The a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s c o n s i s t almost e n t i r e l y of r e a l property. By t h e f i n a l decree of d i s s o l u t i o n , entered September 20, 1976, Dorothy was awarded t h e family home; a small home next door; and t h e proceeds of t h e s a l e of some p a r t i a l l y developed land, s o l d f o r about $8,000. J e r r y was awarded an o l d mining claim c o s t i n g about $30 and approximately s i x a c r e s of land west of Helena, Montana. The c o u r t a l s o awarded Dorothy c h i l d support i n t h e amount of $150 per month and monthly maintenance payments of $300 t h e f i r s t y e a r , $200 t h e second yeaq and $100 t h e t h i r d year. A r e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e maintenance i s s u e i s scheduled a f t e r t h e t h i r d year. Dorothy was represented by counsel a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court b u t b r i n g s t h i s appeal pro s e . The i s s u e s r a i s e d by Dorothy may be consolidatea i n t o t h r e e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : (1) Error by t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n f a i l i n g t o consider v a r i o u s documents ; (2) Several a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of Dorothy's c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t s ; and (3) Lack of evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court's f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g t o property d i s t r i b u t i o n , maintenance and c h i l d support. I s s u e (1). Dorothy a t t a c h e d t o h e r b r i e f on appeal v a r i o u s documents she prepared t o show t h e income and expenses of t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e value of h e r s e r v i c e s during t h e marriage. None of t h e s e documents were o f f e r e d i n t o evidence a t t r i a l , n e i t h e r was t h e r e any o f f e r of proof made regarding them. A s such, t h e s e documents a r e not a p a r t of t h e record on appeal and w i l l n o t be considered by t h i s Court. N.M. P i l l s b u r y v. Blumenthal, (1950), 58 422, 272 P.2d 326. Issue (2). Dorothy c i t e s Sections 3, 9, 1 and 1 7 , A r t i c l e 1 11, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Fourth, F i f t h and Eighth Amendments t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . She s t a t e s , with- o u t f u r t h e r explanation, t h a t h e r r i g h t s under t h e s e provisions were v i o l a t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W n o t e no such arguments e were made i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court e i t h e r a t t r i a l o r i n h e r v a r i o u s post t r i a l motions. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s a r e waived i f n o t r a i s e d a t t h e e a r l i e s t opportunity. 167 Mont. 501, 511, 540 P.2d 306. Johnson v. Doran, (1975), Dorothy c l e a r l y has waived h e r r i g h t t o r a i s e these i s s u e s before t h i s Court. Issue (3). This i s s u e i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e awards of c h i l d support and maintenance, and i n t h e f i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e property. The standard by which t h i s Court reviews such an a c t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court was r e c e n t l y s e t f o r t h i n Berthiaume v. Berthiaume , (1977) , Mont . , 567 P.2d 1388, 34 St.Rep. - 921, 924, c i t i n g P o r t e r v. P o r t e r , (1970), 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538: "* * * I n determining whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e q u e s t i o n i s n o t whether t h e reviewing c o u r t agrees with t h e t r i a l c o u r t , b u t , r a t h e r , d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n a c t a r b i t r a r i l y without t h e employment of conscientious judgment o r exceed t h e bounds of reason, i n view of a l l t h e circumstances, ignoring recognized p r i n c i p l e s r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l injustice ." W have reviewed t h e e n t i r e record and f i n d no abuse of e d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The judgment i s a f f irmed. W Concur: e 4 Justices There was no e r r o r .

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.