WILSON v BEAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 80-384 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 . CLIFFORD 0 WILSON, Petitioner and Appellant, VS . TEENA BEAN, Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli. Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Persson and Weber, Hamilton, Montana For Respondent: Charles H. Recht, Hamilton, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 17, 1981 Decided : Filed: ~m i g 198t MAY 1 9 1981 C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of Court Mr. Petitioner Clifford Wilson 0. appeals from an the order e n t e r e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , R a v a l l i County, awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d costs t o h i s e x - w i f e suant to proceedings brought visitation rights, following The marriage dissolved in the of The award was e n t e r e d p u r - T e e n a Bean. by Clifford to Wilson establish dissolution of the marriage. Wilson and Teena Bean was Clifford 0. S t a t e of Washington i n 1974. T e e n a Bean was awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e i r one c h i l d , C h r i s t o p h e r Wilson. Clifford W i l s o n was g r a n t e d v i s i t a t i o n f o r a p e r i o d o f o n e month t o s i x w e e k s e a c h summer. C l i f f o r d W i l s o n and T e e n a Bean s u b s e q u e n t l y moved t o R a v a l l i C o u n t y , Montana, and e s t a b l i s h e d i n f o r m a l v i s i tation procedures concerning Christopher. Following a d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r v i s i t a t i o n , C l i f f o r d Wilson f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n Court, District seeking either or custody schedule a of visitation. A h e a r i n g was h e l d o n A u g u s t 1 5 , 1 9 8 0 . found: pay (1) T e e n a Bean had reasonable brought attorney by W i l s o n w i t h insufficient fees the and The d i s t r i c t j u d g e financial costs; (2) resources to action was vex Bean; (3) the i n t e n t t o h a r a s s and Bean was e n t i t l e d t o a n award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s ; and ( 4 ) W i l s o n was e n t i t l e d t o r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . ordered t o p a y Bean $ 1 , 4 9 0 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and $20 i n costs. Petitioner raised a c t i o n was b r o u g h t that the thus allowing 40-4-219, two issues on appeal: an award t o vex and attorney of harass the respondent, fees pursuant section to MCA? Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g 2) Teena entitled Wilson Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g 1) that W i l s o n was to Bean had insufficient attorney fees financial pursuant to resources section and 40-4-110, was MCA? s p e c i f y whether f e e s were awarded p u r s u a n t t o o n l y o n e or b o t h o f t h e s t a t u t e s . But we d e t e r m i n e The judgment does not that there is sufficient to evidence support the finding of T h e r e f o r e we a f f i r m t h e award insufficient financial resources. o n t h a t b a s i s , and f i n d it u n n e c e s s a r y t o a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n o f v e x a t i o u s and h a r a s s i n g l i t i g a t i o n . I n o r d e r t o be awarded f e e s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 40-4-110, the MCA, petitioning make 147, 153. The , award m u s t be B i e r v. 6 2 3 P.2d 550, 554, 38 S t . R e p . . Mont ---- , 5 9 3 P.2d (19791I showing a . b a s e d on c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e . , must Knudsen ( 1 9 8 0 ) , ----Mont - Knudsen v. St.Rep. party of 606 P.2d necessity. 1 3 0 , 1 3 5 , 37 reasonable, and must Sherrard (1981), be Mont . 1 5 8 , 1 6 3 ; Green v. G r e e n 446, 450, 36 S t . R e p . 708, 713. R e a s o n a b l e n e s s is shown b y means o f a h e a r i n g a l l o w i n g f o r o r a l testimony, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x h i b i t s , cross-examine. Sherrard, supra. and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o The award w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d b y t h i s C o u r t i f it is s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . v. Kaasa ( 1 9 7 9 ) , ----Mont . , 5 9 1 P.2d Kaasa 1110, 1114, 36 St.Rep. 425, 430. The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A u g u s t 1 5 h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t T e e n a Bean was w i t h o u t r e s o u r c e s . t h a t h e r husband was p r e s e n t l y away f r o m home l o o k i n g f o r work. C l i f f o r d Wilson t h a t h e was n o t p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d , b u t l i v e d on h i s testified funds, t h a t she and was i n d e b t and l i v i n g on borrowed She t e s t i f i e d c i v i l service retirement. Petitioner-husband resources, pointing a s s e t s , and since husband the I s contends that to Teena 's e a r n i n g Teena Bean capacity, has ample h e r husband I s the f a c t t h a t she has apparently supported h e r s e l f dissolution. assets, but He did presented cross-examine her no to testimony about her refute her s h o w i n g of n e e d , o r t o show t h a t he l a c k e d r e s o u r c e s t o p a y t h e award. T e e n a B e a n ' s a t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had e x p e n d e d 2 9 . 8 h o u r s a t $50 a n h o u r , He called M r . and o u t l i n e d h i s s e r v i c e s f o r t h e c o u r t . McKenna, a n o t h e r R a v a l l i County a t t o r n e y , t o t e s t i f y as to t h e normal f e e s c h a r g e d . h o u r was usual and petitioner-husband Mr. reasonable. McKenna i n d i c a t e d t h a t $ 5 0 a n He was n o t cross-examined by . I n sum, w e f i n d t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d as t o t h e n e c e s s i t y o f t h e f e e s , and as to t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e fees. W e w i l l not o v e r t u r n t h e District Court i f t h e f i n d i n g s are s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e Y W e conc'ur: n J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. S h e a w i l l f i l e a s p e c i a l c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n later. Mr.

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.