MARRIAGE OF KNUDSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-267 IN THE SUPRENE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STANLEY M. KNUDSON, Petitioner and Appellant, VS . FRANCES ANNE KNUDSON, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, In and For the County of Hill. Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Berger, Anderson Law Firm, Billings, Montana For Respondent: John F. Iwen, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: December 4, 1980 Decided: led : -pa?+ w Clerk E B 9- lgtgf J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. S t a n l e y Knudson and F r a n c e s Knudson o b t a i n e d a d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n i n t h e H i l l County D i s t r i c t C o u r t on October 1 2 , 1978. The husband a p p e a l e d from t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t p r o v i s i o n s of t h e d e c r e e . The judgment was r e v e r s e d i n p a r t and a f f i r m e d i n p a r t by t h i s C o u r t . (1980) Mont. , Knudson v . Knudson 606 P.2d 130, 37 St.Rep. 147. P o s t - a p p e a l motions were f i l e d by b o t h p a r t i e s , and t h e husband now a p p e a l s from o r d e r s of the D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e q u i r i n g him t o pay i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e of t h e d e c r e e and t o pay t h e w i f e a r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l v a l u e f o r t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y awarded t o h e r under t h e d e c r e e and d i s p o s i n g of the p a r t i e s 1 personal property. I n August 1978 t h e p a r t i e s o b t a i n e d a d i v o r c e d e c r e e p u r p o r t i n g t o d i v i d e t h e e s t a t e 60 p e r c e n t t o t h e husband and 40 p e r c e n t t o t h e w i f e . Under t h i s d e c r e e t h e w i f e w a s t o r e c e i v e t h e farmhouse and o u t b u i l d i n g s , v a l u e d a t $87,000, and $113,000 i n c a s h , p a y a b l e $13,000 i n September 1978 and $6,000 a n n u a l l y t h e r e a f t e r . The w i f e moved t o amend t h i s d e c r e e , and i n October 1978 t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d h e r motion. The c o u r t found t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o a n a d d i - t i o n a l $20,000, r e p r e s e n t i n g h e r s h a r e of h e r h u s b a n d ' s r a i l r o a d r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n which had n o t been o r i g i n a l l y c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t . The husband a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s of t h e i n c l u s i o n of t h e p e n s i o n . We r e v e r s e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e i n c l u s i o n of t h e p e n s i o n and a f f i r m e d t h e b a l a n c e of t h e d e c r e e . See Knudson v . Knudson, supra. Both p a r t i e s t h e n f i l e d p o s t - a p p e a l motions. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e was e n t i t l e d t o a r e a s o n - a b l e r e n t from t h e husband f o r t h e t i m e he o c c u p i e d t h e farmhouse awarded t o h e r . The c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t $6,000 was a f a i r r e n t f o r t h e p e r i o d between October 1978 and A p r i l 1980. The c o u r t a l s o r e q u i r e d t h e husband t o pay i n t e r e s t on t h e $13,000 payment which was due i n September 1978 and t h e $6,000 payment due i n September 1979. The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o reconsidered t h e property d i s t r i b u t i o n and p u r p o r t e d t o e q u a l l y d i v i d e c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y n o t mentioned i n t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e . S t a n l e y Knudson o f f e r s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s review: Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n r e c o n s i d e r i n g d i s t r i - 1. b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a f t e r t h e c a u s e had been remanded by t h i s C o u r t ? Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n i t s a c t u a l d i s t r i - 2. bution of t h e personal property? Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n d i r e c t i n g S t a n l e y Knudson t o pay t o h i s w i f e r e n t and i n t e r e s t d a t i n g from t h e c o u r t ' s decree? I n o u r r e s o l u t i o n of t h e f i r s t a p p e a l of t h i s c a s e , w e ruled: "The d e c r e e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d e x c e p t i n s o f a r a s i t awards t h e w i f e a s h a r e of t h e husband's r a i l r o a d r e t i r e m e n t pension. T h i s 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 f o r amendment of judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s opinion." 606 P.2d a t 135, 37 St.Rep. a t 153. The husband c o n t e n d s i n t h i s a p p e a l t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s r e l i t i g a t i n g i s s u e s regarding t h e couple's personal property. H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y d i s p o s e d of by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had a l r e a d y been d i s t r i b u t e d and t h a t d i s t r i b u t i o n a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t i n Knudson v . Knudson, supra. W e do n o t agree. On May 1 4 , 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t , " [tihe i s s u e of t h e d i v i s i o n of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , mainly household f u r n i s h i n g s , l o c a t e d a t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e and r e s p o n d e n t ' s a p a r t m e n t , was n o t r a i s e d a t t h e o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s o r d i s p o s e d of by t h e c o u r t ' s d e c r e e . This Court can f i n d " no s p e c i f i c d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y which w a s a l r e a d y d i s p o s e d o f by t h e f i r s t d e c r e e . To t h e e x t e n t t h e D i s t r i c t Court determined t h e p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s i n personal p r o p e r t y p r e v i o u s l y unaccounted f o r , o r e x c l u d e d from, t h e f i r s t d e c r e e , t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument t h a t t h e judge was r e l i t i g a t i n g t h e personal property d i s t r i b u t i o n i s unpersuasive. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e judge w a s m e r e l y c o m p l e t i n g h i s i n i t i a l t a s k of s e t t l i n g t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . I n view of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e household f u r n i s h i n g s was a c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e c o u r t ' s o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g , w e a r e o b l i g e d t o r e s p e c t i t s judgment i n t h e a b s e n c e of a r b i t r a r y a c t i o n o r t h e f a i l u r e t o employ c o n s c i o u s judgment. M a r r i a g e of Jacobson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1183, 36 St.Rep. Mont. , I n re 600 P.2d 1773, 1776. Nor do we a c c e p t h u s b a n d ' s argument r e g a r d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s i m p o s i t i o n of r e n t . Husband m a i n t a i n s t h a t had t h e w i f e e i t h e r made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p o s t i n g of a s u p e r s e d e a s bond, moved t o d i s s o l v e t h e s t a y of e x e c u t i o n , o r asked t h e c o u r t t o impose a r e n t a l a s p a r t of t h e s t a y o f e x e c u t i o n , h e would have had t h e o p t i o n of c o n t i n u e d occupancy o r removal. Because of h i s w i f e ' s i n a c t i o n , t h e husband c o n t e n d s h e w a s l i m i t e d i n h i s c h o i c e s and s h o u l d n o t be r e q u i r e d t o pay r e n t . W e w i l l n o t a l l o w t h e husband t o b e n e f i t from h i s own recalcitrance. From t h e d a t e of t h e i n i t i a l d e c r e e g r a n t i n g h i s w i f e t h e p r o p e r t y , h e knew o r s h o u l d have known t h a t h e was u s i n g and occupying r e a l t y which w a s n o t h i s own. f i n d t h a t i t was h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , n o t t h e w i f e ' s , We to proceed toward a d e t e r m i n a t i o n and p r o t e c t i o n of h i s r i g h t s . T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t a l l o w a p e r s o n t o b e n e f i t from h i s own inaction. A s a m a t t e r of f a i r n e s s , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s occupancy of h i s w i f e ' s p r o p e r t y from t h e d a t e of t h e i n i t i a l d e c r e e makes him l i a b l e t o h e r f o r r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l value. I n determining t h a t value, w e a r e obliged t o r e s p e c t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment, and i n t h e a b s e n c e of a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , t h a t judgment w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l . v. Doetch ( 1 9 7 9 ) , St.Rep. N such a b u s e took p l a c e h e r e . o - Mont. , Lumby 600 P.2d 200, 202, 36 1684, 1687. I n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e w i f e c l a i m e d i n t e r e s t on $13,000 from t h e d a t e of t h e judgment and on $6,000 from September 1, 1979. Husband does n o t deny l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e $6,000, b u t a s s e r t s t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e s t a y o f e x e c u t i o n , h e owes no i n t e r e s t on t h e $13,000. S e c t i o n 25-9-205, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t i n t e r e s t i s pay- a b l e on judgments a t t h e r a t e of 10 p e r c e n t p e r annum; b u t , under S e c t i o n 2 , Chap. 649, Laws of 1979, t h a t r a t e a p p l i e s o n l y t o t h e b a l a n c e owing on judgments from and a f t e r J u l y 1, 1979. P r i o r t o t h a t d a t e , t h e p r e v i o u s l e g a l r a t e of 6 percent applies. Rule 31, M.R.App.Civ.P., provides i n r e l e v a n t p a r t t h a t , " [ i l f a judgment f o r money i n a c i v i l c a s e i s a f f i r m e d , whatever i n t e r e s t i s a l l o w e d by law s h a l l b e p a y a b l e from t h e d a t e t h e judgment was r e n d e r e d o r made i n t h e d i s t r i c t court . " The husband m a i n t a i n s t h a t when h e l i m i t e d h i s a p p e a l t o t h e i s s u e of h i s r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n , h i s w i f e c o u l d have e l e c t e d t o a c c e p t t h e o t h e r b e n e f i t s i n t h e d e c r e e and c o u l d have a s k e d t h e c o u r t t o d i s s o l v e t h e s t a y of e x e c u t i o n ; t h a t h e r f a i l u r e t o do s o o r t o a s k t h a t t h e c o u r t r e q u i r e t h e payment of r e n t f o r t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y a s a c o n d i t i o n t o t h e s t a y , amounted t o a w a i v e r of any c l a i m on h e r p a r t f o r i n t e r e s t o r r e n t ; t h a t , i n f a c t , t h e s t a y was n o t e n t e r e d u n t i l a f t e r s h e f i l e d h e r n o t i c e of a p p e a l ; and t h a t i t c a n be assumed t h a t w i f e p e r m i t t e d t h e s t a y t o c o n t i n u e b e c a u s e i t inured t o her benefit. W do n o t a g r e e . e W h e l d i n Resner v. N o r t h e r n Pac. R . R . e Co. (1973), 161 Mont. 177, 505 P.2d 86, t h a t a judgment b e a r s i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e of i t s e n t r y i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t even though i t i s s u b j e c t t o d i r e c t a t t a c k , c i t i n g Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 55 Cal.2d 439, 1 C a l . R p t r . 1 P.2d 76, 78. judgment, 580, 582, 360 Although t h e s e c a s e s d i d n o t i n v o l v e a s t a y of t h e y s t a n d f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t once a p e r s o n i s l i a b l e f o r a money judgment, and payment i s n o t made, t h e p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o t h e judgment i s f u r t h e r e n t i t l e d t o a f a i r r a t e of i n t e r e s t . The husband moved t h e c o u r t f o r a s t a y o f e x e c u t i o n . T h e r e a f t e r , he made no a t t e m p t t o d i s s o l v e t h e s t a y h i m s e l f o r make any a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e what o b l i g a t i o n s were accruing. T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t a l l o w t h e husband t o a v o i d p a y i n g i n t e r e s t merely by a r g u i n g t h a t h i s w i f e d i d n o t d o enough t o s e c u r e it. W w i l l defer t o the D i s t r i c t Court's e judgment i n t h i s m a t t e r , f o r w e d e t e r m i n e t h a t i n t e r e s t w a s p r o p e r l y imposed under Rule 31, M.R.App.Civ.P., c a b l e case law. T h i s c a u s e i s a f f i r m e d on a l l i s s u e s . and a p p l i - W e concur: %&a w-ad b d J q Chief J u s t i c e V Qj4%~. Justices T h i s c a u s e was s u b m i t t e d p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 5 , 1 9 8 1 .

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.