BAKER v BAKER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-393 I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA H F F 1982 I N R THE MARRIAGE OF E EVELYN I . BAKER, P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsD W Y F. E E BAKER, Respondent a n d A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth 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 M i s s o u l a , The H o n o r a b l e James B. W h e e l i s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Recht and Greef , H a m i l t o n , Montana F o r Respondent : T e r r y W a l l a c e , M i s s o u l a , blontana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed : J!J#10 1982 March 11, 1982 J u n e 1 0 , 1982 Mr. ~ u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n t h e Court. delivered T h i s is a n a p p e a l from t h e judgment the of Opinion of the ilistrict Court of t h e F o u r 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 of Missoula, a r i s i n g o u t of a m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n . At t h e t i m e of t h e i r divorce, E v e l y n and Dewey B a k e r e n t e r e d i n t o a p r o p e r t y agreement d a t e d J u n e 27, 1988. agreement was approved by the court and d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n o n t h a t same d a t e . t h e property agreement, agreed t h a t a l l b y them prior entered into This the Under t h e t e r m s o f among o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s , t h e p a r t i e s family obligations of t o August 7, 1979, the parties incurred were t o b e t h e s o l e a n d s e p a r a t e o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t husband. Obligations i n c u r r e d s i n c e t h a t d a t e by t h e p a r t i e s i n d i v i d u a l l y were t o be the s e p a r a t e o b l i g a t i o n s of t h e p a r t y who incurred the obligations. The custody parties and agreed control of that the the wife f i v e minor would have children, that full the h u s b a n d was t o h a v e 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 a n d c e r t a i n p e r i o d s o f t i m e d u r i n g t h e summer a n d h o l i d a y s ; in addition, t h e a p p e l l a n t h u s b a n d was t o make a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h t h e w i f e prior to these visitations. The husband was to pay all m e d i c a l and d e n t a l b i l l s . The h u s b a n d was t o c o n v e y t o complex income owned from obligation care and appellant by the parties which was to of the education husband husband of be in the Missoula, used t o pay the wife by her support, as an apartment Montana, and for the the m a i n t e n a n c e and parties' minor children. The agreed with regard the further to c o n v e y a n c e o f t h e a p a r t m e n t t o p r o v i d e an income t o t h e w i f e of at l e a s t $1,000 per month. T h i s was s e t up s o i n t h e e v e n t t h e g r o s s r e n t s r e c e i v e d from s u c h a p a r t m e n t s d i d n o t e x c e e d $1,BB0 f o r any o n e month, t h e r e s p o n d e n t w i f e would n o t i f y t h e h u s b a n d o f s u c h d e f i c i t a n d h e was t o make up t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n a c a s h payment w i t h i n f i f t e e n d a y s . P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o p e r t y a g r e e m e n t t h e a p p e l l a n t husband a g r e e d t o d e p o s i t i n t h e F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank i n V i c t o r , Montana, t h e sum o f $ 1 , 0 0 0 t h e name o f balance in agreement and t o m a i n t a i n the respondent wife, the account i t was of t h a t account in and t o f u r t h e r m a i n t a i n a $1,000. With regard to this understood t h a t t h e respondent could draw upon t h i s a c c o u n t a t a n y t i m e t h e g r o s s r e n t s r e c e i v e d f r o m the apartments were less than $1,000 for any one given month. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e w i f e drew on t h e a c c o u n t , t h e husband had the obligation to return $1,008 b a l a n c e w i t h i n t h e f i f t e e n - d a y the account period. to its In addition, t h e agreement provided t h a t a t any t i m e t h e respondent w i f e d r e w upon the the account, a p a r t m e n t s were when equal the gross to or rents exceeded received $1,000, from or drew upon t h e a c c o u n t f o r t h e r e a s o n o t h e r t h a n m a k i n g up f o r t h e reduction in the gross rents received from t h e a p a r t m e n t s , f o r any g i v e n month, t h e a c c o u n t i n t h e F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank would all be closed and proceeds therein returned to the a p p e l l a n t husband. The i n k was h a r d l y d r y o n t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s s i g n a t u r e to the dissolution a g a i n back i n c o u r t . wife petitioned agreement before On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , t h e p a r t i e s were o n c e 1981, the respondent t h e District Court f o r a r e s t r a i n i n g order t o p r e v e n t t h e a p p e l l a n t husband from e x e r c i s i n g h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s and p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g on arrearages and support payments and numerous other p r o b l e m s s h e was h a v i n g a s a r e s u l t o f h a v i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e children. H e a r i n g s were h e l d on the wife's June 18, the Following t h e s e h e a r i n g s t h e c o u r t , Within less than two weeks, on the appellant f i l e d m o t i o n s f o r a new t r i a l and f o r a l t e r a t i o n o r amendment o f t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , to enforce 1 9 8 1 , e n t e r e d an o r d e r b a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e o f hearings. husband to 1981, i n t h e R a v a l l i t h e d e c r e e on May 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 and May 22, County C o u r t h o u s e . motion Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P. The husband both pursuant f u r t h e r moved a s i d e t h e o r d e r b e c a u s e t h e r e were no f i n d i n g s of to set fact or c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w , t o s t a y t h e e x e c u t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t o f the order, and to modify the support provisions of the original order. I t would a p p e a r t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h u s b a n d , realizing t h a t t h e m o t i o n s f o r a new t r i a l and f o r amendments were n o t t i m e l y , on J u l y 22, after, 1981, f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal. There- on November 4, 1 9 8 1 , t h e a p p e l l a n t husband moved f o r a s t a y of execution. hearing, T h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d a f t e r and t h e a p p e l l a n t husband a brief t h e n moved t h e c o u r t t o r e e s t a b l i s h v i s i t a t i o n with h i s c h i l d r e n . T h a t m o t i o n was h e a r d on December 2 1 , 1 9 8 1 , and a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h a t h e a r i n g was i n c l u d e d on t h i s a p p e a l . On August 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e c o u r t d i d f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f enter f i n d i n g s of law p u r s u a n t t o t h e r e q u e s t of the husband i n h i s J u n e 29, 1 9 8 1 , m o t i o n . Five issues a r e presented for consideration: 1. Whether t h e o r d e r d a t e d J u n e 1 8 , 1 9 8 1 , s h o u l d be v a c a t e d and r e v e r s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. 2. Whether t h e c h a n g e o f v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r e d by t h e supplemental decree dated May 15, 1981, was supported by f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o r by e v i d e n c e . 3. Whether t h e o r d e r o f the court establishing the a p p e l l a n t ' s a r r e a r a g e s i n t h e amount o f $2,849 i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . 4. Whether the order of the court compelling the a p p e l l a n t t o pay management f e e s i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e l a w o r the facts. 5. escrow Whether t h e o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g a r e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f is account an impermissible modification of the marriage was binding agreement of t h e p a r t i e s . Here, the decree of dissolution of e n t e r e d on J u l y 1 4 , 1988. By m o t i o n d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e w i f e s o u g h t t o e n f o r c e t h e d e c r e e a s t o t h e payment o f c h i l d s u p p o r t and r e a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s , and a l s o s o u g h t t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s o f t h e husband be c h a n g e d . W are e n o t i n v o l v e d w i t h a n a p p e a l from a judgment f o l l o w i n g t r i a l . The l a s t s e n t e n c e o f R u l e 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., d i s p o s e s of t h e issue, stating : " F i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a r e u n n e c e s s a r y on d e c i s i o n s o f m o t i o n s u n d e r R u l e s 1 2 o r 56 o r a n y o t h e r m o t i o n e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 4 1 ( b ) .I' R u l e 4 1 ( b ) p e r t a i n s t o i n v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l of a c t i o n s and is not a p p l i c a b l e here. A s a r e s u l t , we c o n c l u d e t h a t u n d e r R u l e 5 2 ( a ) f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w were n o t r e q u i r e d under t h e r u l e s . Issue two i n v o l v e s t h e change of a p p e l l a n t husband. sonable" visitation interpretation of v i s i t a t i o n by the A s i n s o many c a s e s where t h e word " r e a - rights the word are put into "reasonable" the is decree, left to the two That is t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e , unreasonable p a r t i e s . District set Court forth a found it necessary scheduled and t h e t o modify t h e d e c r e e t o visitation that both parties could l i v e by. The e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g s c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e husband a b u s e d h i s p r i v i l e g e s u n d e r t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s set f o r t h i n the o r i g i n a l decree. The t r i a l court m e r e l y c l a r i f i e d t h o s e r i g h t s by p e r m i t t i n g b o t h p a r t i e s t o h a v e a l t e r n a t i v e weekend v i s i t a t i o n s and s e t t i n g a s p e c i f i c f o r t y - d a y summer v i s i t a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t provided f o r t h e manner i n which t h e a p p e l l a n t h u s b a n d was t o a r r a n g e visitations. These restrictions and clarifications w a r r a n t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t , were and t h e r e is c l e a r l y no a b u s e o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n . The t h i r d i s s u e is d i r e c t e d t o a r r e a r a g e s which t h e a p p e l l a n t husband a r g u e s a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . W f i n d t h i s a f r i v o l o u s i s s u e because t h e a p p e l l a n t admits e that the $2,369.27 arrived at by the District Court was a g r e e d upon a t t h e h e a r i n g s a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e was placed before the court. Appellant takes issue with f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o g i v e him c r e d i t o f for a the $150 s t o v e given t o t h e wife a t t h e time of d i s s o l u t i o n . T h i s t y p e o f p e t t i n e s s d e s e r v e s l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n on a p p e a l . The c o u r t had s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t a s t o t h e amount d u e on June 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 , and t h e amount i n a r r e a r a g e . There is ample e v i d e n c e f o r t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , and we f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . The n e x t issue is directed at the requirement that a p p e l l a n t pay f o r p r o p e r t y management f e e s f o r t h e a p a r t m e n t complex d e e d e d t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t . The f o u r - p l e x apartment conlplex i n v o l v e d h e r e is w i t h i n s e v e r a l b l o c k s o f t h e Uni- v e r s i t y o f Montana and i s d e s c r i b e d a s b e i n g among t h e m o s t r e n t a b l e t y p e of p r o p e r t y i n M i s s o u l a . o v e r o f t h e complex by t h e w i f e , Following t h e taking t h e r e was t e s t i m o n y t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e were v a c a n c i e s i n t h e a p a r t m e n t s . There- f o r e , t h e income from t h e p r o p e r t y d i d n o t come up t o e x p e c tations, and t h e a r r e a r a g e c o m p l a i n e d of by t h e r e s p o n d e n t wife occurred. The husband testified that this was rentable very p r o p e r t y and t h e r e s h o u l d h a v e been p e o p l e i n t h e a p a r t m e n t s throughout the time involved. In his view the vacancies o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e o f rnisrnanagement by r e s p o n d e n t . h i s witnesses, a p p e l l a n t had a real estate A s one of agent familiar H i s t e s t i m o n y was t o with t h e r e n t a l s i n Missoula t e s t i f y . t h e e f f e c t t h a t f o r a r a t h e r minor f e e , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 % , h e c o u l d manage t h e p r o p e r t y and s u c c e s s f u l l y k e e p i t f u l l . A s a r e s u l t of could t h i s testimony, the property and, because this i s what he w a n t e d , of e a r n more u n d e r the court property be managed Missoula and that by the a trial pay by t h e husband that court directed that the competent husband that p r o f e s s i o n a l management t h e e v i d e n c e produced the found real for estate same. person W e find in no merit t o the appellant's contentions in t h i s matter. The n e x t i s s u e is d i r e c t e d a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s re- e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e e s c r o w a c c o u n t s e t up i n t h e p r o p e r t y settlement agreement. Appellant argues t h a t no a u t h o r i t y t o m o d i f y t h e t e r m s o f t h e binding a g r e e m e n t u n l e s s i t found t h a t t h e w e l f a r e o f was being affected or that a change t h e c o u r t had of separation the children c i r c u m s t a n c e s had o c c u r r e d s o s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g a s t o make t h e t e r m s unconscionable. The child custody and property agreement provided t h a t t h e escrow c o u l d be c l o s e d by t h e husband i f the wife " d r a w s on s a i d a c c o u n t f o r a r e a s o n o t h e r t h a n m a k i n g up f o r such reduction i n g r o s s r e n t s r e c e i v e d from t h e a p a r t m e n t s , . . ." f o r a n y g i v e n month The r e s p o n d e n t w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u e t o v a c a n c i e s and o t h e r economic f a c t o r s , t h e r e n t a l income f e l l s h o r t o f t h a t a n t i c i p a t e d . The p r o p e r t y a g r e e m e n t h e r e was w r i t t e n b y a p p e l l a n t a n d i s s i l e n t on w h a t t h e w i f e was t o d o i f t h e h u s b a n d owed h e r c h i l d s u p p o r t when t h e e s c r o w a c c o u n t was e s t a b l i s h e d . In this instance, imri~ediately a f t e r months l a t e r and the the because escrow account dissolution was not established was g r a n t e d b u t several t h e p a r t i e s were s i g n i n g m u t u a l d e e d s transferring property. However, the necessity t o care f o r t h e c h i l d r e n a s p r o v i d e d by t h e d e c r e e was a c o n t i n u i n g o b l i g a t i o n d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i n which t h e v a r i o u s d e e d s were being passed back their and attorneys. forth Under by these the husband circumstances, b r e a c h by r e s p o n d e n t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t , and we the court did t h e husband not abuse find and no b y w i t h d r a w i n g money and u s i n g i t f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n . fore, wife its d i s c r e t i o n There- in directing t o r e e s t a b l i s h t h e a c c o u n t and comply w i t h t h e terms o f t h e a g r e e m e n t . F i n d i n g no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n a n y o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a c t i o n s h e r e i n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t is a f f i r m e d . d e n t is awarded c o s t s on a p p e a l . Respon- W e concur :

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.