MARRIAGE OF D C v M C
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-214 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1981 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F D.C.', P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, M.C.. , Respondent and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , The Honorable Diane G. B a r z , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: J o n e s Law Firm, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Lynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d , S c h o p p e r t & Skaggs, B i l l i n g s , Montana T e r r y L. S e i f f e r t , B i l l i n g s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : September 3 , 1 9 8 1 Decided: November 2 5 , 1981 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . The m a r r i a g e of D.C. ( t h e husband) and M.C. (the wife) w a s d i s s o l v e d i n J a n u a r y 1981 i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, Montana. M.C. a p p e a l s from t h e p o r t i o n s of t h e d e c r e e r e l a t i v e t o p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n , maintenance and a t t o r n e y f e e s . W e r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n r e g a r d t o a l l t h r e e of t h o s e p o r t i o n s of t h e d e c r e e . The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n 1960. b o r n t o them. Three c h i l d r e n were A t t h e t i m e of t h e t r i a l , o n l y one of c h i l d r e n was a minor, and s h e was 17 y e a r s of a g e . the The husband was 44 y e a r s of a g e and t h e w i f e w a s 4 0 y e a r s of a g e when t h e t r i a l was had. The p r o p e r t y of t h e c o u p l e c o n s i s t e d o f t h e f a m i l y home and i t s f u r n i s h i n g s , t h e p a r t i e s ' p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s , and two o l d and u n r e l i a b l e a u t o m o b i l e s . The husband h a s been employed by t h e Western Union T e l e g r a p h Company s i n c e 1960 and e x p e c t s t o remain w i t h t h a t company u n t i l retirement. H i s g r o s s income a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l was s l i g h t l y i n e x c e s s o f $20,000 p e r y e a r . g r a d u a t e from h i g h s c h o o l . during t h e marriage. The w i f e d i d n o t She had no o u t s i d e employment The w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e m a r r i a g e c o n s i s t e d of r a i s i n g t h e c h i l d r e n , cooking and c l e a n i n g . The t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n d i m i n i s h e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e m a r r i a g e , p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e o f m e n t a l problems. The husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t w i t h i n a few weeks of t h e i r m a r r i a g e i t became e v i d e n t t h a t h i s w i f e was i n c a p a b l e of d o i n g t h e shopping and b r i n g i n g home t h e g r o c e r i e s . t h e m a r r i a g e t h e husband o b s e r v e d t h a t h i s w i f e had a Early i n m e n t a l d i s o r d e r which l i m i t e d h e r a b i l i t y t o f u n c t i o n normally. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t was n o t u n t i l t h e t i m e of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , n e a r l y 20 years l a t e r , t h a t t h e wife w a s f i r s t brought t o a p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r d i a g n o s i s and t r e a t m e n t . The w i f e ' s p s y c h i a t r i c and p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e p o r t s were e n t e r e d i n e v i d e n c e i n l i e u of d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y by t h e w i f e . The c o n t e n t of t h o s e r e p o r t s i s p e r t i n e n t t o our r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s case. M.C.'s p s y c h o l o g i s t r e p o r t e d t h a t M.C. was s u f f e r i n g from " a s e v e r e e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e d i a g n o s e d a s s c h i z o p h r e n i c r e a c t i o n , chronic undifferentiated type." The p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s c l i n i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e e f f e c t s of t h i s d i s o r d e r i s t h a t M.C. has "decreased coping s k i l l s , l i m i t e d i n t e l l e c t u a l problem-solving c a p a b i l i t i e s , " and h a s e x p e r i e n c e d " w i t h d r a w a l from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e world o f e v e r y d a y e v e n t s , and w i t h d r a w a l from meaningful i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . " The p s y c h o l o g i s t found t h a t M.C. " i s f u n c t i o n i n g a t a b o r d e r l i n e l e v e l of intelligence classification. However, t h i s i s n o t a consequence of l i m i t e d i n t e l l e c t u a l r e s o u r c e s , b u t i s more a funct i o n of h e r s e v e r e e m o t i o n a l w i t h d r a w a l during r e c e n t years. This person i s a chronic emotionally disturbed individual who h a s n o t p a r t i c i p a t e d m e a n i n g f u l l y i n t h e everyday e v e n t s of t h e world around h e r d u r i n g r e c e n t y e a r s . A s a consequence, t h e r e h a s been a s h a r p d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g b e c a u s e of d i s use." The p s y c h o l o g i s t found M.C. t o be i n t h e bottom t e n p e r c e n t of t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n i n t e l l e c t u a l l y . f o r o u r p u r p o s e s , M.C. Most i m p o r t a n t was found t o be " d i s a b l e d a s f a r a s h e r a b i l i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e c o m p e t i t i v e job m a r k e t . " The p r o s p e c t s f o r a n improvement i n h e r c o n d i t i o n do n o t a p p e a r good. "The p r o g n o s i s f o r a c h r o n i c u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s c h i z o p h r e n i c r e a c t i o n i s v e r y guarded. The l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h i s woman would b e n e f i t from p r o f e s s i o n a l p s y c h o t h e r a p y i s low." The r e p o r t recommended t h a t M.C. " s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d a s s i s t a n c e t h r o u g h some p u b l i c f a c i l i t y , such a s [ t h e ] D i v i s i o n of V o c a t i o n a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . " I t appears t h a t v o c a t i o n a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n would s e r v e a s t h e r a p y r a t h e r t h a n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r employment: " I f she i s given help i n t h e form of employment a s s i s t a n c e , s h e s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n j o b f u n c t i o n s i n a meaningful way i n o r d e r t o r e c e i v e h e r check." M.C. Finally, the r e p o r t advised t h a t would a l s o need a s s i s t a n c e from t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i v e S e r v i c e s i n t h e form of b a s i c l i f e s k i l l s training. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t must c o n s i d e r a number of f a c t o r s i n a r r i v i n g a t a d i s p o s i t i o n of p r o p e r t y i n a d i s s o l u t i o n proceeding. Among t h e s e f a c t o r s a r e : t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e marriage; t h e age, h e a l t h , occupation, vocational s k i l l s , e s t a t e , l i a b i l i t i e s , e m p l o y a b i l i t y , amount and s o u r c e s of income and needs of e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s ; whether t h e p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n i s i n l i e u of o r i n a d d i t i o n t o maintenance; and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f e a c h f o r f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l a s s e t s and income. S e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. Before a c o u r t c a n award maintenance i n a d i s s o l u t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , t h e r e must be a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e spouse s e e k i n g maintenance l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t p r o p e r t y t o p r o v i d e f o r h i s r e a s o n a b l e needs and t h a t t h e s p o u s e i s u n a b l e t o s u p p o r t h i m s e l f t h r o u g h a p p r o p r i a t e employment. S e c t i o n 40-4-203(1), MCA. I f maintenance i s t o be awarded, t h e amount and d u r a t i o n of t h e award i s d e t e r m i n e d by c o n s i d e r i n g : t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g maintenance, i n c l u d i n g m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y a p p o r t i o n e d t o him and h i s a b i l i t y t o meet h i s needs i n d e p e n d e n t l y ; t h e t i m e n e c e s s a r y t o acquire s u f f i c i e n t education o r t r a i n i n g t o enable t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g maintenance t o f i n d a p p r o p r i a t e employment; t h e s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e ; t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e ; t h e a g e and t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e s p o u s e s e e k i n g maintenance; and t h e a b i l i t y of t h e s p o u s e from whom maintenance i s s o u g h t t o m e e t h i s n e e d s w h i l e meeting t h o s e of t h e spouse s e e k i n g maintenance. S e c t i o n 40-4-203(2), MCA. The d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s made t h r e e a l l o c a t i o n s t o t h e wife. F i r s t , t h e husband was ordered t o provide medical insurance f o r t h e wife v i a a b a s i c m e d i c a l p o l i c y and a major m e d i c a l p o l i c y . The t o t a l monthly premiums f o r t h e p o l i c i e s was $62.82 a t t h e t i m e of trial. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d of t h e amount t h a t these p o l i c i e s provide f o r p s y c h i a t r i c treatment. Second, t h e w i f e was awarded a p o r t i o n of t h e f u r n i t u r e and household i t e m s . T h i r d , t h e w i f e was t o be g i v e n 50 p e r c e n t of t h e n e t p r o c e e d s of t h e s a l e of t h e f a m i l y home, a f t e r d e d u c t i o n of c l o s i n g c o s t s , r e a l e s t a t e f e e s , f e e s of t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y and h e r g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m , a home improvement l o a n , t h e c o s t of t h e w i f e ' s p r e t r i a l p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n s , c a p i t a l g a i n s t a x e s , and a l l o t h e r t a x e s , l i e n s o r encumbrances on t h e home. The w i f e ' s c a s h award from t h e s a l e o f t h e home, a f t e r a l l d e d u c t i o n s , would be less t h a n $25,000 w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l income t a x e s . T h i s sum w a s t o be p u t i n a t r u s t f u n d , t h e p r o c e e d s of which w e r e t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e c a r e , s u p p o r t and maintenance of t h e wife. e r r e d by: I n her appeal, the wife argues t h a t t h e c o u r t (1) r e q u i r i n g one-half of t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be p a i d o u t of t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e s a l e of t h e home; (2) n o t awarding maintenance t o t h e w i f e ; and ( 3 ) n o t awarding t h e w i f e a l a r g e r s h a r e of t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e s a l e of t h e house. The ~ i s t r i c C o u r t based i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e t f i n a n c i a l a s p e c t s of t h i s c a s e upon f a c t u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which a r e n o t always s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . The c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e husband had two o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t s which would n o t be e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e s a l e of t h e house. The c o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e c o u p l e ' s t h r e e c h i l d r e n were s t i l l r e s i d i n g a t home. Without e l a b o r a t i o n , t h e c o u r t found t h a t i t was r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h e husband would c o n t i n u e t o c a r r y t h e f i n a n c i a l burden of b e i n g a p a r e n t beyond t h e d a t e of t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m a j o r i t y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o found t h a t t h e husband was n o t f i n a n c i a l l y a b l e t o pay maintenance t o t h e w i f e o t h e r t h a n p r o v i d i n g m e d i c a l i n s u r a n c e , and t h a t t h e o n l y means of p r o v i d i n g f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e w i f e was from h e r 50% of t h e e q u i t y i n t h e f a m i l y home. The t o t a l o b l i g a t i o n owing under t h e two d e b t s mentioned above was o n l y $1,325.88, i n the near future. a n amount t h a t would be p a i d o f f The r e c o r d d o e s r e v e a l t h a t t h e husband had a d e s i r e t o c o n t i n u e t o a i d h i s c h i l d r e n beyond t h e t i m e when t h e law r e q u i r e s s u c h a i d from him. However, w e f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h e law which t r a n s m u t e s p a r e n t a l g e n e r o s i t y i n t o a n o b l i g a t i o n which r e l i e v e s a spouse from a p o t e n t i a l d u t y t o p r o v i d e maintenance i n a d i s s o l u t i o n a c t i o n . The c o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e was " s u f f e r i n g from a severe emotional psychological disturbance." found, i n a m i l d u n d e r s t a t e m e n t , The c o u r t a l s o t h a t t h e w i f e "may e x p e r i e n c e d i f f i c u l t y i n o b t a i n i n g and k e e p i n g any t y p e of employment." And, even though t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e w i l l need p s y c h o l o g i c a l h e a l t h c a r e t r e a t m e n t i n t h e f u t u r e , and t h a t h e r minimum l i v i n g e x p e n s e s would be $600.00 p e r month, t h e c o u r t ' s d e c r e e r e q u i r e s t h i s 4 0 y e a r o l d woman t o l i v e o f f o f a t r u s t w i t h a p r i n c i p a l of less t h a n $25,000.00. I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e income from t h e t r u s t c o u l d n o t meet t h e $600.00 p e r month minimum l i v i n g e x p e n s e s o f t h e wife. I f p r i n c i p a l i s used t o meet h e r n e e d s , t h e t r u s t soon would be e x h a u s t e d . T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d under f a c t s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h a t i f t h e e f f e c t of n o t awarding maintenance i s t o make a s p o u s e a ward of t h e s t a t e , maintenance s h o u l d be awarded i f p o s s i b l e . v. S t e n b e r g ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 164, 505 P.2d 1 1 0 . Stenberg That holding i s applicable i n t h i s case notwithstanding t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act i n 1975. The r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e w i f e h a s no employment s k i l l s , and i n a d d i t i o n , h e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l , e m o t i o n a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n d i t i o n a r e s u c h a s t o p r e v e n t h e r from b e i n g employed i n the foreseeable future. The r e c o r d d o e s n o t show t h a t t h e w i f e h a s any o t h e r s o u r c e s of income o r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l a s s e t s i n t h e f u t u r e . The p r o v i s i o n s of t h e d e c r e e , i n c l u d i n g t h e proposed t r u s t , a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e r e a s o n a b l e needs of t h e w i f e . Unless t h e r e i s a change i n t h e d e c r e e , i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e w i f e w i l l become a ward of t h e government i n a r e l a t i v e l y short time. D.C. T h i s i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e where s h e was t h e w i f e of f o r 20 years. W r e v e r s e t h o s e p o r t i o n s of t h e d e c r e e r e l a t i v e t o e a t t o r n e y f e e s , p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n and maintenance. In view of t h e l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e w i f e , w e f i n d t h a t a n award s h o u l d b e made t o t h e w i f e of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , b o t h a t t r i a l and on t h i s a p p e a l , w i t h s u c h i t e m s t o be p a i d by t h e husband. S e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA. The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g instructions: 1) Determine t h e w i f e ' s r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , b o t h a t t r i a l and on a p p e a l ; 2) Re-examine t h e p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n and d e t e r m i n e a d i s p o s i t i o n which w i l l m e e t t h e r e a s o n a b l e needs of t h e wife; Based upon t h e a p p a r e n t need f o r l i f e t i m e maintenance, 3) d e t e r m i n e t h e r e a s o n a b l e amount of maintenance t o be p a i d by t h e husband t o t h e w i f e , w i t h t h e award t o be f l e x i b l e enough t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e needs of b o t h p a r t i e s a s t h e i r economic s i t u a t i o n s change; 4) C o n s i d e r t h e c o m p a r a t i v e needs of t h e husband and w i f e and d e t e r m i n e i f i t i s r e a s o n a b l y p o s s i b l e t o e x t e n d t h e maintenance p r o v i s i o n s beyond t h e r e t i r e m e n t o r d e a t h of t h e husband. S e c t i o n 40-4-208 ( 4 ) , MCA. Reversed and remanded. W Concur: e p vw, e 8. Chief J u s t l c e t A A q
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.
