MARRIAGE OF SCHENCK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 84-235 IN THE SUPREP.IE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984 114 RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOY M. SCHENCK, Petitioner and Respondent, -vsJOSEPH W. SCHENCK, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable John M. McCarvel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF FSXORD: For Appellant: Hartelius Montana & Ferguson; Cameron Ferguson, Great Falls, For Respondent: Church, Harris, Johnson Great Falls, Montana & Williams; Don A. LaBar, Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: MOV 1 5 f904 Clerk July 27, 1984 November 15, 1984 Mr. Justice John C. Court. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the Joseph W. Schenck appeals from a decree of dissolution of his marriage to Joy M. Schenck, entered in the District Court, Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, which awarded Joy spousal maintenance of $500 per month. On appeal, Joseph argues that the court did not consider the statutory requirements for an award of mai~tenance to Joy, that the award of maintenance awarded was excessive, and that there should have been a limit on the duration of the maintenance award. On consideration of these issues, we a£firm. The parties were married on January 30, 1965. children were born during the marriage. Two Both have reached majority, the younger on September 20, 1984. At the time of the divorce, Joseph was 42 years old and Joy was 37 years old. She was in normal health except for a back condition which prevents her from lifting heavy objects. Joseph is employed- by the Burlington Northern Railroad as a car man. His 1983 gross income was $34,201 and his net income, including his overtime, $24,030. His base pay for 1983 would have allowed him $1,700 per month in take-home Pay Joy had worked marriage, but at various tempora.ry jobs during the she was primarily a homemaker. She has, however, worked as a real estate salesperson since the middle of 1982. Her net income in the year 1983 appears to have been $10,668, less business expenses of S5,079. The District Court found the net marital estate to be $63,855. Joy was award.ed: Personal Property Distributed Less ~iabilities-~ssumed $7,825 Difference in Value of Personal Property (to be paid when house sells) Excess in Savings Account after Equal Division Half of Equity in House after Distribution to her of $5 ,525 ($43,979 - $5,5253 x 50% = Total $5,525 573 Essential-ly the District Court awarded Joy one-half of the marital estate. house "in the parties have The principal asset of the estate is a country" valued at an equity of $110,000 in which a-pproximately $44,000. the The District Court provided that Joseph should make payments of $686 per month until the house is sold. The proceeds of the sale of the house are to be divided equally between the parties in accordance with the court's directions. Joseph showed month1.y 1iving expenses of approximately Joy showed average monthly 1-iving expenses of $1,000 $500. for herself and the child. The court actually awarded to Joy $250 in monthly child support to be paid by Joseph until the younger child turned 18, and $250 in maintenance. After September 20, 1984, the amount of maintenance shall be $500 per month. On the first issue, whether the District Court should have awarded maintenance to Joy, Joseph argues that under section 40-4-203, MCA, the court may on1.y grant maintenance for a spouse if two conditions are present: the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property to provide for her needs and j.s unable appropriate employment. to support herself through Here, Joseph contends, after the sale of the house Joy will have approximately $22,000 to invest and a net income from her real estate business of at least $500 per month. He maintains, therefore, that the qualifications required under the statute for maintenance were not established in this cause. On the first issue Joy answers that this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the District Court but rather determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the District Court. and Marriage of Thompson (Mont. 1984), 676 P.2d 223, 41 St.Rep. 237; Kowis v. Kowis (Ilont. 1983), 658 P.2d 1084, 40 St.Rep. 149; Carr v. Carr (Mont. 1983), 667 P.2d 425, 40 St.Rep. 1263. Joy's answer to the first issue does not fully meet the contention raised by Joseph that section 40-4-203, MCA, requires a finding by the court that the spouse receiving maintenance lacks sufficient property to provide for her needs and is unable to support herself through appropriate employment. The District Court, however, did recite that it had considered this statute in making the maintenance award. There are factors in the record which make it clear that the District Court was correct in awarding maintenance to Joy. At the time of the divorce, after a marriage of 19 years, she had little more than one year % experience as a real estate salesperson. Court to occupation determine without It was impossible for the District her her probable further income from experience. such After an the residence of the parties is sold, she will undoubtedly incur rental expense. the short Considering the duration of their marriage, period of her business experience, and the husband's ability to pay, it appears satisfactorily from the record that the requirements of section 40-4-203, MCA, are met in that she does not have sufficient property to provide for her needs nor is there sufficient proof in the record to establish that she is able to support herself through appropriate employment. Joseph's second contention is the amount of maintenance is excessive. Here we face a matter of judgment essentially within the broad discretion of the District Court which we may not set aside unless the District Court is clearly erroneous. Joseph contends that his potential for future railroad retirement benefits may have been considered by the District Court, but nowhere in the record is there any indication that the court did take his potential railroad benefits into consideration. The third issue is whether the District Court should have placed a limit on the period of time that Joseph should pay maintenance. Here, Joseph argues that a permanent award in effect subsidizes Joy so she will have little incentive to improve her salesperson. required to earnings The from her work as a factors, however, which consider in connection with real estate the Court the award maintenance are those in section 4 0 - 4 - 2 0 3 ( 2 ) , MCA. is of These include not only the financial resources of the parties seeking maintenance, but the standard of living established during the marriage, the duration of the marriage, the age and physical condition of the spouse seeking maintenance, and the ability of the spouse for whom maintenance is sought to meet her needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance. The District Court found that the present monthly expenses for Joy and her child living with her averaged $900 to $1,000 per month. It found that after the house is sold and s h e must pay r e n t , $400 p e r month. insurance, h e r expenses w i l l i n c r e a s e $300 t o She m u s t a l s o p r o v i d e f o r h e r own h e a l t h dental care, and p l a n f o r h e r f u t u r e . Based on t h e D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t a f a i r her s a l e s experience, a s s e s s m e n t was s h e would n o t e a r n more t h a n $600 p e r month n e t take-home pay. The c o u r t had b e f o r e it l i t t l e o r no e v i d e n c e t o f o r e c a s t a d a t e i n t h e f u t u r e when t h e a.mount o f m a i n t e n a n c e r e q u i r e d by h e r would b e less t h a n $500 p e r month or nothing a t a l l . District Court I n t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n , made determination a maintenance without a t i m e l i m i t . for changed provisions proper circumstances f o r modification of circumstances under meantime, provides The p r o t e c t i o n t o J o s e p h the future lies in the t.he maintenamce award u n d e r s e c t i o n 40-4-208, MCA. In the t h i s C o u r t h a s no more b a s i s upon which t o l i m i t the duration The in which the f o r ma.intenance t h a n d i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . decree of the maintenance i s affirmed. District Court with n Justice W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e respect to
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.
