MARRIAGE OF PERRY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 85-67 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1985 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F DALTON ANTHONY PERRY, P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , and CAROLYN SUE PERRY, R e s p o n d e n t and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: 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 , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of Y e l l o w s t o n e , T h e H o n o r a b l e D i a n e G. B a r z , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Keefer, Roybal, Hanson, B i l l i n g s , Montana Stacey & Jarussi, For Respondent: George Radovich, 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 : Decided: Filed: Clerk May 9 , 1985 July 2 9 , 1 9 8 5 M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of M r . J u s t i c e F r a n k B. t h e Court. Carolyn Perry Court, District appeals an Thirteenth order Judicial and judgment District, of the Yellowstone County, which d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e , p r o v i d e d f o r c h i l d support and denied maintenance and attorneys fees. The d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i s a f f i r m e d ; m a i n t e n a n c e and a t t o r n e y s f e e s a r e remanded. Carolyn They had two is Carolyn children, years 44 Jody, old and on now a g e Tony September 9, i s 35. 17, and J e f f , Prior b o t h p a r t i e s w e r e employed and p r o v i d e d marriage, own s u p p o r t . employed Tony w e r e m a r r i e d and 1971. age to 6. their for their Tony was a n e l e c t r i c i a n , and h e h a s been s e l f - since 1977 a s a n electrical contractor. Carolyn h o l d s a B a c h e l o r o f S c i e n c e (Zoology) d e g r e e and was employed f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11 y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e a s a p e d i a t r i c micro-chemistry l a b o r a t o r y worker. T o n y ' s income v a r i e s from y e a r t o y e a r b u t he i s now making a p p r o x i m a t e l y $25,000 C a r o l y n d i d n o t work w h i l e t h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d . a year. After t h e p a r t i e s separated, Carolyn s t a r t e d t o t e a c h piano l e s s o n s and s e l l s k i n c a r e p r o d u c t s from h e r home, t i m e of trial A t the s h e was making a p p r o x i m a t e l y $175 p e r month t e a c h i n g p i a n o and a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300 p e r month s e l l i n g s k i n c a r e products. Tony filed A p r i l 1 6 , 1982. a petition for dissolution of marriage on By m o t i o n d a t e d May 2 1 , 1982, C a r o l y n s o u g h t a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r r e q u e s t i n g t h a t Tony v a c a t e t h e f a m i l y home and t h a t d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , h e b e r e q u i r e d t o s u p p o r t h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n . The p a r t i e s reached order, an agreement, incorporated in a court Tony would v a c a t e t h e f a m i l y home and t h a t he would pay that Carolyn $300 each month and in addition pay the monthly m o r t g a g e o n t h e f a m i l y home i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 3 2 0 . T r i a l w a s h e l d on S e p t e m b e r 2 , 1 9 8 3 . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a n d a n o r d e r o n October 4, 1983. The d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n w a s n o t s i g n e d u n t i l October 1 8 , 1 9 8 4 . Carolyn a p p e a l s t h e District C o u r t o r d e r on t h e followi n g issues: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e p a r t i e s ' r e a l and personal property? 2. Was t h e d e n i a l o f justified 3. band under the facts a m a i n t e n a n c e award t o t h e w i f e and circumstances Was t h e d e n i a l o f t h e w i f e ' s pay reasonable attorney's of this case? r e q u e s t t h a t t h e hus- fees incurred by h e r i n the defense o f t h i s matter proper? PROPERTY DIVISION The District Court divided the marital assets f0l.lows: HUSBAND AMOUNT ITEM One-half house p r o c e e d s One-half l a n d sale 1978 C h e v r o l e t p i c k u p 1982 Datsun p i c k u p 1982 Toyota c a r Kawasaki m o t o r c y c l e 1964 C h e v r o l e t v a n Tools Business savings account Business checking account Personal checking account One-half V a i l t i m e - s h a r e TOTAL A.SSETS T O HUSBAND $17,750.00 6,000.00 3,450.00 8,500.00 10,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 5,000.00 800.00 400.00 (unknown) as WIFE ITEM AMOUNT One-ha 1f h o u s e p r o c e e d s One-half l a n d s a l e 1978 Subaru Jewelry F u r n i s h i n g s and a p p l i a n c e s Personal savings account One-half V a i l t i m e - s h a r e $17,750.00 6,000.00 2,875.00 3,000.00 6,000.00 3,000.00 (unknown) TOTAL ASSETS TO WIFE $37,625.00 ----------- T h e l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s w e r e d i v i d e d as f o l l o w s : HUSBAND ITEM T a x e s - 1982 and 1 9 8 3 Gertie P e r r y o n e - h a l f o f $11,000.00 G e r t i e Perry - remainder o f pickup loan One-half V a i l t i m e - s h a r e Kawasaki d e b t ( a s above) Datsun d e b t ( a s above) Toyota d e b t ( a s above) - HUSBAND'S TOTAL L I A B I L I T I E S $41,050.00 ------------ WIFE ITEM AMOUNT G e r t i e P e r r y - o n e - h a l f o f $11,000.00 One-half V a i l t i m e - s h a r e $ 5,500.00 1,750.00 $ 7,250.00 WIFE'S TOTAL LIABILITIES --------------------- Carolyn's primary dispute with t h e property d i v i s i o n is t h a t s h e w i s h e s t o be a l l o w e d t o r e m a i n i n t h e f a m i l y home until the house is children located reach close the to age the of majority because children's m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e payment i s o n l y $320. t h e house s h o u l d be and the She would n o t b e a b l e t o f i n d s i m i l a r h o u s i n g f o r t h a t amount. determined school the The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s split e v e n l y between t h e two p a r t i e s . Carolyn a l s o d i s p u t e s t h e equal d i v i s i o n o f t h e i r r e a l property in Colorado because she used $5,000 from her for i t s down payment. p r e m a r i t a l savings account t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t T o n y ' s The D i s - income had b e e n u s e d for the r e s t o f t h e payments and h e was e n t i t l e d t o o n e - h a l f of t h e p r o c e e d s from i t s s a l e . Carolyn one-half of also argues that she should not have to pay t h e amount r e m a i n i n g due on a l o a n from T o n y ' s m o t h e r b e c a u s e t h e r e had been a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e m o t h e r t h a t t h e y w o u l d n ' t h a v e t o make anymore payments. a promissory n o t e on the loan signed by both T h e r e was Carolyn and Tony, b u t no payments had been made s i n c e 1977. The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t h a s been s t a t e d many times. I n dividing property i n a marriage disso- l u t i o n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s f a r - r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n and i t s judgment w i l l n o t b e a l t e r e d w i t h o u t a showing o f c l e a r a b u s e of The t e s t o f a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i s w h e t h e r discretion. the trial court conscientious acted judgment arbitrarily or exceeded Vert (Mont. 79, 42 St.Rep. 1 9 8 4 ) , 680 P.2d t h i s standard w e cannot 587, the employment bounds of of reason I n Re Marriage of Rolfe resulting i n substantial injustice. (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , 699 P.2d without 623; I n R e M a r r i a g e o f 4 1 St.Rep. 895. Applying s a y t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its discretion. W e a r e sympathetic t o t h e w i f e ' s d e s i r e t o s t a y i n t h e f a m i l y home, however, of the total t h e house r e p r e s e n t s a v e r y l a r g e p a r t a s s e t s owned by t h e p a r t i e s . If t h e husband cannot o b t a i n h i s s h a r e o f t h i s a s s e t , he w i l l have substant i a l l y l e s s t h a n one-half of t h e assets. The w i f e w i l l b e r e c e i v i n g f u n d s from t h e s a l e o f t h e p r o p e r t y , and a l t h o u g h s h e may n o t b e a b l e t o f i n d h o u s i n g a s n i c e a s t h e family home, s h e s h o u l d b e a b l e t o f i n d a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g f o r h e r s e l f and h e r c h i l d r e n . The real equal property Court's division was a of the the proceeds from reasonable did the Colorado of the District exercise S i n c e Tony discretion. purchase of we property, contribute cannot find toward an the abuse of note to discretion. is Carolyn Tony's mother. legally obligated to pay on the W e cannot f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g h e r t o pay o n e - h a l f of t h e r e m a i n i n g payments. Maintenance Carolyn maintenance contends that the f o r h e r was n o t circumstances of t h i s case. District justified Court's under t h e denial of f a c t s and W e agree. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s payments o f $620 p e r month f o r o v e r a y e a r w e r e s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e w i f e ' s r e h a b i l i t a t i v e p u r p o s e s and t h a t no f u r t h e r m a i n t e n a n c e was necessary. The c o u r t went on t o say t h a t t h e wife has " d e m o n s t r a t e d income c a p a c i t y " a s a l a b t e c h n i c i a n , a a piano teacher o r a cosmetic salesperson. W e find Carolyn's t i o n i n the recent 1 9 8 5 ) , 699 P.2d situation very similar t o t h e situa- case of I n R e Marriage of 79, 4 2 St.Rep. Rolfe (Mont. 623, i n which w e remanded t h e award o f m a i n t e n a n c e f o r o n l y o n e y e a r b e c a u s e t h a t was n o t enough time for the wife maintain her standard of B.A. find living. adequate In Rolfe, employment to t h e w i f e had a i n e d u c a t i o n and had t a u g h t f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s p r i o r t o marriage. We to She d i d n o t work d u r i n g t h e 1 5 y e a r s o f m a r r i a g e . found t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had r e l i e d h e a v i l y on t h e husband's a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e w i f e could e a r n $17,000 a y e a r a s an elementary school teacher. A t t h e time of trial, she was w i t h o u t a t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e o r t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e f o r 16 y e a r s . Similarly, i n t h e c a s e a t hand, C a r o l y n h a s n o t worked There i s evidence i n t h e r e c o r d , i n 10 years. that i f she were t o return t o her old position a s a lab technician, she would need additional quirements. the or meet to certification re- The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o r e l i e d t o o h e a v i l y on finding t h a t piano schooling Carolyn could earn $12 t o p e r hour $40 $11 p e r hour teaching s e l l i n g cosmetics. This is d e c e p t i v e b e c a u s e i t would be v e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r h e r t o work Carolyn testi- 4 0 h o u r s a week a t e i t h e r one o f t h e s e j o b s . fied that cially she and t h e since lifestyle the c h i l d r e n had been party's separation, seems t o h a v e s u f f e r e d v e r y struggling but the finan- husband's H e h a s even little. been a b l e t o make s e v e r a l l a r g e p u r c h a s e s . The p r o p e r t y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded C a r o l y n i s n o t income-producing. The o n e y e a r o f m a i n t e n a n c e C a r o l y n h a s a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d h a s n o t been enough t o a l l o w h e r t o become f i n a n c i a l l y independent. reconsider the wife's W e remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o salary prospects and duration of maintenance. Attorney's Fees C a r o l y n a s k e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t award h e r a t t o r ney's simply fees. The c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s on t h i s m a t t e r b u t stated: "Each o f l e g a l f e e s and c o s t s . " award a t t o r n e y ' s f a c t why such Hammeren fees, fees (Mont. Having f a i l e d t o for attorney's parties s h a l l pay own it must i n d i c a t e i n t h e f i n d i n g s o f not 663 awarded. P.2d 1152, follow t h i s procedure, fees their Where t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e s t o were 1982), the s h a l l be considered d e n i e d , t h e d e n i a l must b e s u b s t a n t i a t e d . In 39 Re Marriage St.Rep. the wife's on remand, of 2222. request and if The husband c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f t h i s a p p e a l was w i t h o u t m e r i t and was done f o r p u r p o s e s o f d e l a y . Clearly, t h i s a p p e a l has m e r i t and h i s r e q u e s t f o r damages i s d e n i e d . W e a f f i r m i n p a r t and remand i n p a r t f o r f u r t h e r pro- ceedings i n accordance w i t h t h i s opinion. W concur: e I
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.
