No. 12306
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
OR F F
1972
ANNE E. STENBERG,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
CARL M. STENBER.G,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert S. K e l l e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Korn, Worden, Walterskirchen & C h r i s t i a n s e n ,
K a l i s p e l l , Montana.
Gary L. C h r i s t i a n s e n argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana.
For Respondent:
M. Dean J e l l i s o n argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana.
Submitted: November 29, 1972
Decided: 3 f i 1 2 TCJ~?
~
Filed: !fib f % 273
XI. J ~ s t i c e
viesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opix~ionof t h e Court.
' i h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o r ~
i n t h e e l e v e n ~ hj u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of F l a t h e a d . Plaintiff
Anne E, Stzenberg brought t h e a c t i o n s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e and alimony,
d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y , a t t o r n e y f e e s and v a r i o u s o t h e r r e l i e f .
Defendant husband C a r l M. Stenberg answered and counterclaimed f o r
divorce. The c a u s e was t r i e d by t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y .
,I d i v o r c e was g r a n t e d t o b o t h p a r t i e s h u t no alimony was g r a n t e d
t o the wife. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s only on t h e f a c t t h a t she was
, - ~ o given an alimony s e t t l e m e n t ; she does n o t a p p e a l t h e g r a n t i n g
t
QP t h e d i v o r c e .
The p a r t i e s were married a t I < a l i s p e l l , Montana on I4ay 2 8 ,
1 9 5 7 ; t h e w i f e was 42 and t h e husband 6 2 , N c h i l d r e n were born
o
a s i s s u e of t h e m a r r i a g e , although each had c h i l d r e n by a p r e v i o u s
ruarriage. These c h i l d r e n were grown and n o t dependent upon e i t h e r
0 2 the p a r t i e s a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e . Both p a r t i e s ~ e s t i f i e d
t o a l l e g e d misconduct of t h e o t h e r p a r t y d u r i n g t h e 14 y e a r
q ~ a r r i a g e . S u f f i c e t o s a y t h a t t h e marriage experienced t u r b u l e n t
p e r i o d s , p r i o r t o t h e time of f i n a l s e p a r a t i o n and d i v o r c e .
Duri-ng t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t r i a l , eech p a r t y prepared and
f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t s e t t i - n g f o r t h t h e i r f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n . The
a f f i d a v i t s show t h e w i f e h a s s u b s t a n t i a l l y no money on which t o
l i v e and h a s been on cotznty w e l f a r e a s s i s t a n c e s i n c e t h e s e p a r a -
zlon. O t h e o t h e r hand, t h e husband h a s around $180 p e r month
n
incornc, from a v e t e r a n ' s pension and Soci-a1 S e c u r i t y ; he otms a
73 a c r e farm which i s l e a s e d out on a s h a r e - c r o p b a s i s , b u t h a s
s~lbstantial. alue.
v This farm h a s a s m a l l mortgage on i t , b u t
the t r i a l c o u r t found i t s v a l u e would b e between $25,000 and
$ 3 0 , 0 0 0 , c l e a r of a l l encumbrances, Testimony a t t r i a l r e v e a l e d
wife
t h e / s u f f e r s from a h e a r i n g problem and a r t h r i t i s , and s h e i s
r l o L i n a p o s i t i o n t o o b t a i n worlc.
The t r i a l c o u r t upon h e a r i n g t h e evidence g r a n t e d a d i v o r c e
t o b o t h p a r t i e s , b u t d i d n o t award t h e w i f e any alimony s e t t l e m e n t .
Post t r i a l motions were f i l e d and argued, b u z a ~ were Llenied
i
by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The w i f e now b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l on t h e
grounds t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d on t h e q u e s t i o n of alimony,
Appellant p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review. The major
i s s u e i s whether the t r i a l c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n i t s r u l i n g on
the q u e s t i o n of alimony,
I t was c l e a r l y demonstrated t h e w i f e h a s no income and a
oec worth of only a few hundred d o i l a r s , c o n s i s t i n g of items of
pt2rsonal p r o p e r t y . She h a s few marketable s k i l l s and s u f f e r s
from p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t i e s which s e v e r e l y l i m i t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
o r f u t u r e employment. For t h e s e r e a s o n s , s h e i s a t p r e s e n t
l o r c e d t o e x i s t on w e l f a r e and h a s become a charge of t h e s t a t e .
The husband h a s o n l y a s m a l l income from Social S e c u r i t y
dnu a v e t e r a n ' s pension which would n o t p e r m i t him t o make a
n o n t h i y payment t o the w i f e and s t i l l have s u f f i c i e n t t o l i v e on
himself. Yet, h e does have a v a l u a b l e a s s e t , a 73 a c r e farm worth
approximately $30,000. He t e s t i f t e d t h a t t o o b t a i n t h e d i v o r c e
fr
5 e would have gone q u i t e a ways I t i n p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t . k t one
time, he t e s t - i f i e d h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o g i v e h e r $6,000. In a
p o s t t r i a l memorandum h i s c o u n s e l i n d i c a t e d a w i l l j - n g n e s s t o
provide some small amount f o r h e r c a r e .
R e c e n t l y , t h e r e have been a number of c a s e s decided by t h i s
Zourt on t h e q u e s t i o n of p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t a r i s i n g o u t of
Jivorce. T h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e would seem t o be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e
from t h e s e r e c e n t c a s e s and t h e ones c i t e d by b o t h c o u n s e l . Here,
w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h t h e problem of alimony o n l y ; i t i s n o t a
q u e s t i o n of d i v i d i n g up t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e marriage. The q u e s t i o n
i s - - - u n d e r what c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s alimony g r a n t e d ?
The t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s r u l i n g s t a t e d t h e view t h a t alimony
is based on 1:he economic s t a t u s of t h e w i f e ; t h a t s h e h a s n o t
b e t t e r e d h e r s e l f d u r i n g t h e marriage a s t h e husband h a s ; and
s h c r e f o r e , t h e husband w i l l have t o b e a r t h e burden of f i n a n c i a l
c d r e of t h e w i f e . But, t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
marriage was more of a b u s i n e s s arrangement f o r b o t h p a r t i e s .
'Che wife '1;iil a p l a c e KO l i v e , 3nd "_he riecessitie;, >I' i.ii'~ O
~ J U ~ U
I3c s u p p l i e d by t h e husband, working t o supply t h e i t e m s they
b o t h would need. The c o u r t maintained t h e w i f e brought n o t h i n g
i-llco t h e marriage, and was going o u t t h e same way, h e r p o s i t i o n
had n o t changed d u r i n g t h e marriage.
The t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g i s d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d f a u l t
J ~ i t i ~'1ut t h i s woman i-s c e r t a i n l y 1eavi.ng t h e marriage w i t h l e s s
,
.rhan when she e n t e r e d i t . She i s 14 y e a r s o l d e r ; she cannot f i n d
~5niploynentdue t o p h y s i c a l i n f i r m i t i e s she d i d n o t have w'nen
;he e n t e r e d t h e marriage. F u r t h e r , she h a s c o n t r i b u t e d by h e l p i n g
on t h e farm, by a i d i n g i n t h e b u i l d i n g of an a d d i t i o n t o t h e
farm hone, and o t h e r a d d i t i o n s t o t h e farm p r o p e r t y . The husband
! C T T ~ F J when he e n t e r e d t h e marriage t h a t h i s w i f e came i n t o t h e
'ndrriage w i t h n o t h i n g , no a s s e t s , and h e should have Zcnom h e was
s t ~ i n gt o have t o t a k e c a r e of h i s w i f e f o r h e r l i f e t i m e . She was
IJ-s w i f e and performed t h e domestic d u t i e s and h e must have been
A w a r e t h a t s h e could n o t e a r n a l i v i n g w i t h what s k i l l s she had.
-
~qow, a t t h i s t i m e , t h e husba~idand w i f e cannot l i v e t o g e t h e r ,
3
n i ~ a r r i a g eh a s ended, The husband i s going t o be allowed t o
keep a l i h i s property. The w i f e i.s t o l d t h a t s i n c e she e n t e r e d
tl-iis marriage w i t h n o t h i n g , p u t t i n g a s i d e t h e f a c t t h a t s h e
,~orlcedf o r 14 y e a r s h e l p i n g w i t h h i s farm, s h e w i l l n o t r e c e i v e
. i ~ r y cype of h e l p . To put i t b l u n e i y , t h e e f f e c t of t h e t r i a l
i ~ u i - t ' sr u l i n g i s t o make t h e e x - w i f e a p u b l i c c h a r g e ,
I n a case such a s t h i s , alimony shoult-1 h e g r a n t e d i f p o s s i b l e
30 !:ha: {:he w i f e w i l l n o t become a ward of t h e s t a t e . It i s a
,dues tion of whether t h e t a x p a y e r s of F l a t h e a d County should pay
f o r 1ivLng expenses o f t h i s woman o r should t h e man w h o married
11er 14 y e a r s ago and promised t o l o v e , h o n o r and cher'sh h e r till
d e a t h v~ouidend 'clre r e l a t i o n s h i p . The husband c l e a r l y h a s t h a t
d u t y a n d ?-~e i l l be r e q u i r e d t o pay f o r t h e support of his w i f e ,
w
. h , i t h i n h i s abLiLty.
3ecLkon 3-1-139,li.C;,i"l 1?4/, ;Irovides ~ h aa hdsband Lay
~
3,- c e c j ~ i . ~ i c - . i !1-0 p r o v i d e suppori: lior Ishc w i f e . In a s i t u a l - i o n ,
,,lch 2 s h e r e , when Chc d i v o r c e i s g r a n t e d t o b o t h p a r t i e s
~ ~ t ~ h o r fio ry a l l o w i n g an alimony s e t t l e m e n t i s provided i n
t
i ~ r i z s . Burns, 245 I/iont. 1, 0 , 400 P , 2d 642.
v There t h i s Court
~aser-~ed
that: t o deny alimony under t h e f a c t s might r e s u l t
i.rl " l e a v i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t a t l a r g e i n t h e community w i t h o u t
iI
i~cctrts o f s u p p o r t .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f e l t t h a t under e x i s t i n g law i t could
n , ~ c ~ a n talimony payment t o t h e w i f e .
g I t remains t h e o b l i g a t i o n
3;: t h e husband t o s u p p o r t t h e w i f e s o t h a t she w i l l n o t became
burden on the p u b l i c . I d l ~ i l et h e t r i a l c o u r t f e l t e x i s t i n g law
i ~ ~ ~ i notl a l l o w a g r o s s amount as alimony under t h e s e c i r c u n -
l c
;t=inces, we C X ~ C I - It~ e
h law of Burns and h o l d t h a t such alimony
~ h d i l l dbe ailowed.
A p p e l l a n t ' s second i s s u e f o r review i s t h a c an i n d i g e n t
persorr h a s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a t r a n s c r i - p t on a p p e a l
i n a c i v i l m a t t e r w i t h o u t prepayment of c o s t s . This i s a
q u e s t i o n o f c o n s ~ i t u t i o n a lr i g h t s given t o i n d i g e n t a p p e l l a n t s .
F u r t h a t i s s u e t o be p r o p e r l y r a i s e d b e f o r e t h i s Court an
i r l d i v i d u a l , proceeding i n forma p a u p e r i s , must have been denied
ci copy of t h e t r a n s c r i p t wi.i:hout paying any of t h e c o s t s . That
i ~ d sn o t happened i-n t h i s c a s e and a p p e l l a n t does n o t have
5 ~ a n d i n gt o a s s e r t t h e i s s u e , I n N a t i o n a l S u r e t y Corp. v .
Kruse, 1.21 Mont. 202, 207, 192 P,2d 317, t h i s Court s a l d :
II
W w i l l not decide a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l question
e
u n l e s s i t i s n e c e s s a r i l y involved and n e c e s s a r y
t o a d e c i s i o n . 11
H e x e , Che c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n r a i s e d i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
invoived, t h e r e f o r e w e w i l l n o t d i s c u s s i t .
A p p e l i a n t l s f i n a l i s s u e concerns t h e c o s t s of t h i s a c t i o n
a n J attorney f e e s , The husband w i l l b e r e q u i r e d t o pay r e a s o n a b l e
aLtorney f e e s , a s determined by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and a l s o c o s t s
oT t h e a c t i o n , which i n c l u d e s c o s t of t h e t r a n s c r i p t ,
The cause i.s rerila~~ciedo I-he li.sl;ricir. l u c i ~ t,o
t that a
t.ea;oL~abLf2 n d a p p r o p r i a t e alirnony s e t t l e m e n t cc3n b e made.
a
; L u s t s w i l l be a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t respondent and t h e d i s ~ r i c t
c:ourt s h a l l t a k e any o t h e r a c t i o n which might b e n e c e s s a r y , n o t
i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s o p i n i o n .
Associat'rJ J u s t i c e