MARRIAGE OF SUNDSTROM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ELIZABETH A. SUNDSTROM, Petitioner and Respondent, -vsCHARLES SUNDSTROM, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Beaverhead, The Honorable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Schultz, Davis & Warren, Dillon, Montana For Respondent: W. G. Gilbert, 111, Dillon, Montana Submitted on Briefs: February 25, 1981 Decided: March 12, 1981 Filed: M r . J u s t i c e Frank B . Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Husband a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , awarding w i f e maintenance. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s s o l v e d t h i s m a r r i a g e on September 4 , 1979 and r e s e r v e d t h e i s s u e of p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . After t r i a l on t h e p r o p e r t y i s s u e , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law on J u n e 3, 1980, and awarded w i f e $35,000, p a y a b l e $10,000 i n c a s h and $25,000 i n monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s over an eight-year period. a l l of t h e p r o p e r t y , The c o u r t awarded t o t a l i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $67,000 i n e q u i t i e s , t o t h e husband e x c e p t i n g s e v e r a l i t e m s of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y r e t a i n e d by t h e w i f e . Husband t h e n moved t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and t h e c o u r t m o d i f i e d i t s o r d e r by d e c r e a s i n g t h e w i f e ' s award t o $30,000, p a y a b l e $10,000 i n c a s h and $20,000 a t 1 0 p e r c e n t p e r annum, p a y a b l e i n monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s , commencing August 1 5 , 1980, i n t h e amount of $305.35 and c o n t i n u i n g u n t i l 9 6 payments w e r e made. The c o u r t t h e n found t h a t a m a i n t e n a n c e award i n t h e amount of $100 p e r month s h o u l d be made commencing August 1 5 , 1980, and s h o u l d be p a i d on t h e 1 5 t h day of e a c h succeedi n g month f o r a p e r i o d of 1 5 y e a r s b u t t h e n p r o v i d e d t h a t no maintenance payment s h o u l d be made i n any months i n which husband made t h e payment of $305.35. The o r d e r i s n o t c l e a r whether t h e payment of maintenance i s d e f e r r e d o r whether t h e p a r t i c u l a r maintenance payment due i s f o r g i v e n by t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t payment. The p a r t i e s , i n t h e i r b r i e f s , have t r e a t e d t h e payment a s f o r g i v e n and w e w i l l i n v o k e t h e d o c t r i n e of i m p l i e d f i n d i n g s t o s u p p o r t t h a t p o s i t i o n . The r e s u l t i s , s h o u l d husband make h i s r e g u l a r p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t payments of $305.35 e a c h month, a maintenance award w i l l be f o r g i v e n f o r e i g h t y e a r s ; t h e n maintenance w i l l commence w i t h t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of 96 p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t payments and w i l l r u n f o r a p e r i o d of s e v e n y e a r s . The s o l e i s s u e on t h i s a p p e a l i s 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 i n g r a n t i n g a maintenance award a s o u t l i n e d above. A p p e l l a n t husband c o n t e n d s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t w i f e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o maintenance b e c a u s e s h e i s employed. A p p e l l a n t r e l i e s upon s e c t i o n 40-4-203(1), MCA, which p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e r e c i p i e n t may be awarded m a i n t e n a n c e i f : "(a) l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t property t o provide f o r h i s [or h e r l reasonable n e e d s , and ( b ) 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 Tar h e r s e P f ] . . ." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t make a f i n d i n g r e s p e c t i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e needs of t h e w i f e . However, t h e s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g p r i o r t o d i s s o l u t i o n i s w e l l documented. Throughout t h e m a r r i a g e t h e husband worked f u l l - t i m e i n t h e w i l d l i f e management f i e l d and t h e w i f e worked p a r t - t i m e a s a s e c r e t a r y o r bookkeeper. Husband and w i f e , j u s t p r i o r t o d i v o r c e , l i v e d on a n income i n e x c e s s of $20,000 p e r year. A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l w i f e o f f e r e d a n e x h i b i t showing l i v i n g e x p e n s e s of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $400 p e r month and a n e t take-home pay f o r t h e w i f e of $464.98 p e r month. Did t h e d i s t r i c t judge err i n g r a n t i n g maintenance where w i f e ' s n e t take-home pay exceeded h e r monthly l i v i n g expenses? W e think not. I n M a r r i a g e of Cromwell ( 1 9 7 9 ) , P.2d 1 0 1 0 , 36 St.Rep. Mont. , 588 60, t h i s C o u r t s e t a maintenance award under f a c t s s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r t o t h e c a s e a t b a r . In Cromwell t h e husband, a law p r o f e s s o r a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y of Montana Law S c h o o l , had g r o s s e a r n i n g s of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $25,000 per year. Wife in that case was averaging about $500 per month in net income from performing as a relief nurse. Wife was given the family residence. The District Court found the wife's reasonable monthly living expenses to be $789.50 per month and granted wife maintenance in the amount of $250 per month for the ensuing 12 months, $125 per month during the succeeding 18 months and none thereafter. The Supreme Court reversed and established maintenance of $400 per month, including $100 per month for retirement, giving wife a total of $900 per month. In Cromwell the court noted the maintenance statute previously set forth. In making the award the court considered the standard of living achieved during the marriage and the husband's ability to provide continuing support. In this case the monthly payment of $305.35 was ordered as a "buy-out" of the wife's interest in marital assets. If the wife is forced to invade these payments for purposes of supplementing her monthly income, then she is forced to consume property acquired during the marriage while, at the same time, the husband is making an investment of $305.35. The net effect is that wife's net worth would continually be diminished while the husband's net worth would correspondingly be increased. By suspending maintenance payments during the eight-year period of time the property settlement payments are being made, the wife may well be forced to reduce her marital holdings to meet monthly living expenses. Arguably this would not be so if the wife continued to live as frugally as she is apparently living at the present time. However, if she were to maintain any semblance of the standard of living existing during the marriage, such an invasion of her apportioned assets would be mandatory. Assuming t h a t t h e husband makes t h e monthly payment of $305.35 f o r e i g h t y e a r s , t h e r e b y p u r c h a s i n g h i s w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n m a r i t a l a s s e t s , a maintenance award of $100 p e r month w i l l commence i n e i g h t y e a r s . Given p r e s e n t i n f l a - t i o n a r y t r e n d s , t h e maintenance award g r a n t e d w i l l be of l i t t l e value. W e f i n d n o t h i n g p r e j u d i c i a l t o a p p e l l a n t husband i n t h e c o u r t ' s award of maintenance. Court i s affirmed. W e concur: ca~;y2. Justices The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t
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.
