No. 12538
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A
H OR F F OTN
1974
FRANCIS J . WHITMAN,
P l a i n t i f f and Cross Defendant
and Appellant,
THELMA S. WHITMAN,
Defendant apd Cross Complainant
and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable @~3-.I=2*, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
4
M,~ if+j~-c&*
Counsel of Record : L
For Appellant :
Bennett*and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana
Lyman H. Bennett I11 argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent :
Drysdale, McLean and S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana
John P . S c u l l y argued, Bozeman, Montana
**
#
,
Submitted : January 15, 1974
Decided : HfiR ~l1974,
r+?
1
F i l e d : MAR -. 1 1974
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
This a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f F r a n c i s J. Whitman, i s from a judg-
ment of d i v o r c e e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t 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 n t h e e i g h t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County.
Due t o t h e f a c t i s s u e s a r i s i n g o u t of two h e a r i n g s a r e i n -
volved, we w i l l s e t f o r t h t h e procedu.ra1 m a t t e r s a s they a r o s e
p r i o r t o t h i s appeal.
The d i v o r c e judgment was e n t e r e d by Judge L e s s l e y on February
22, 1973. The d e c r e e g r a n t e d defendant Thelma S. Whitman a d i v o r c e ;
provided f o r a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t ; an.d r e q u i r e d p l a i n t i f f t o pay
defendant $800 p e r month a s alimony,plus $1,500 a t t o r n e y f e e s .
Subsequent t o t h e f i l i n g of n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , defendant f i l e d a
motion supported by a n a f f i d a v i t t o r e q u i r e p l a i n t i f f t o commence
alimony payments and pay t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s . T h e r e a f t e r Judge
Lessley i s s u e d a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e , d a t e d June 5 , 1973, r e -
q u i r i n g p l a i n t i f f t o appear i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e motion. Upon
r e c e i v i n g t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e , p l a i n t i f f d i s q u a l i f i e d Judge
Lessley and Judge Freebourn was c a l l e d t o h e a r t h e show cause
motion. Hearing was h e l d on J u l y 3 , 1973. Subsequently Judge
to
Freebourn ordered p l a i n t i f f l P a y temporary alimony of $800 p e r
month, p l u s t h e a t t o r n e y f e e . P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h e d e c r e e
and Judge ~ r e e b o u r n ' so r d e r .
The p a r t i e s were married i n 1937 and have l i v e d i n West
Yellowstone, Montana a l l t h e i r married l i f e . Three c h i l d r e n were
born a s i s s u e of t h e marriage, b u t a r e now of l e g a l age. In the
e a r l y y e a r s of t h e marriage t h e p a r t i e s had l i t t l e i n t h e way of
wealth o r p r o p e r t y , b u t commencing i n t h e m i d - 1 9 4 0 ' s ~ through t h e i r
j o i n t e f f o r t s , t h e y accumulated b o t h r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y
which a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e amounted t o s e v e r a l hundred thou-
sand d o l l a r s .
A t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e t h e husband was 67 y e a r s of age
and t h e w i f e 58 y e a r s of age. For some 35 y e a r s t h e y l i v e d and
worked t o g e t h e r i n what could be d e s c r i b e d a s a good marriage.
Most of t h a t time defendant was a mother and housewife, b u t d u r i n g
p a r t of t h e time she c a r e d f o r t h e i r t o u r i s t c a b i n s when needed
and worked a s a c l e r k i n t h e i r s t o r e . Except f o r h i g h blood
p r e s s u r e and d i a b e t e s she was a w e l l person. P l a i n t i f f obviously
had worked hard over t h o s e y e a r s and had s u c c e s s f u l l y accumulated
considerable assets. I n 1971 he r e t i r e d and t h e g a s s t a t i o n he
owned was l e a s e d , b r i n g i n g him $1,000 p e r month. He t e s t i f i e d
t h a t one of t h e r e a s o n s f o r r e t i r i n g was h i s h e a l t h and t h a t he
fl
was worn o u t f f .
For t h i s c o u p l e r e t i r e m e n t brought problems. Plaintiff
r e t i r e d on January 1, 1971. By summer he had moved o u t t o a
l a k e i n a t r a i l e r where he s t a y e d u n t i l t h a t f a l l ; when he r e t u r n e d
t o t h e i r home he was t o l d he was n o t welcome. For t h e n e x t s i x
months he was away from t h e home. When he r e t u r n e d t o West Y e l l ~ w -
s t o n e i n t h e s p r i n g of 1972, he was informed by defendant t h a t t h e
marriage was over and a f t e r f a i l i n g i n h i s e f f o r t f o r r e c o n c i l l a -
t i o n , he f i l e d f o r a d i v o r c e . Defendant cross-complained c h a r g i n g
c r u e l t y and t h e c z u s e went t o a h e a r i n g .
Due t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d h e r e , we n o t e t h a t p l a i n t i f f i n
h i s complaint evidenced a w i l l i n g n e s s pay $400 p e r month f o r
s u p p o r t of defendant. I n h e r c r o s s - c o m p l a i n t defendant asked f o r
$700 p e r month, a d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y and a t t o r n e y f e e s . After
h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t awarded defendant t h e d i v o r c e ; t h e home
and land on which i t was s i t u a t e d ; one-half t h e s a v i n g s of t h e
p a r t i e s ; an automobile; a b o a t ; and $800 p e r month s u p p o r t .
P l a i n t i f f was allowed t o keep t h e income producing p r o p e r t y .
To t h e d a t e of t h e d i v o r c e and d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of s e p a r a t i o n
p l a i n t i f f had been g i v i n g defendant $400 p e r month, p l u s approximately
$10,500 i n cash. Defendant c h a l l e n g e s t h a t f i g u r e b u t admits r e -
c e i v i n g money from p l a i n t i f f . Following Judge ~ e s s l e y ' sjudgment,
p l a i n t i f f stopped payment o f t h e $400 s u p p o r t money and r e f u s e d
per
t o pay t h e ordered $800 month award o r t h e a t t o r n e y f e e , which r e -
f u s a l brought about t h e h e a r i n g p r e s i d e d over by Judge Freebourn
some f o u r and a h a l f months l a t e r .
P l a i n t i f f r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on a p p e a l which we w i l l
combine, f o r purposes of t h i s opinion. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n
granting :
1. A d i v o r c e t o defendant and n o t t o p l a i n t i f f ?
Alimony defendant i n t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n and i n
t h e s p e c i a l proceedings pending t h e a p p e a l ?
3. Attorney f e e s i n both proceedings?
The f i r s t i s s u e c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y
power provided i n s e c t i o n 21-103, R.C.M 1947. Here, p l a i n t i f f
f i r s t sought t h e d i v o r c e by f i l i n g h i s complaint. Defendant
answered and f i l e d a cross-complaint. I f proven, p l a i n t i f f ' s
a l l e g a t i o n s were s u f f i c i e n t t o g r a n t him a d i v o r c e , b u t a f t e r
a f u l l h e a r i n g t h e t r i a l judge determined t h a t he had n o t proven
h i s a l l e g a t i o n s b u t t h a t defendant had proven h e r s . By t h e
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e s t a t u t e t h e t r i a l judge had t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y
power t o s o f i n d .
The complaint was couched i n t h e language of s e c t i o n 21-106,
R.C.M. 1947, charging mental c r u e l t y . This Court i n Judson, Adm.
v. Anderson, 118 Mont. 106, 109, 165 P.2d 198, h e l d :
"The s o l e q u e s t i o n presented on t h i s a p p e a l i s
t h a t of t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o sup-
p o r t t h e d e c r e e and judgment. The answer t o t h i s
depends upon whether o r n o t t h e evidence substan-
t i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i n f l i c t i o n of extreme c r u e l t y
by t h e defendant upon t h e p l a i n t i f f , a s contemplated
by s t a t u t e and a s a l l e g e d i n t h e complaint. A t t h e
o u t s e t we a f f i r m and r e i t e r a t e t h e r u l e t h a t i n c a s e s
of t h i s n a t u r e t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l
n o t b e d i s t u r b e d by t h i s c o u r t where t h e r e c o r d con-
t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence upon which they may be
s u s t a i n e d ; t h a t when t h e evidence f u r n i s h e s a substan-
t i a l b a s i s f o r t h e f i n d i n g s t h e y w i l l be permitted
t o stand."
See a l s o : Boggs v. Boggs, 119 Mont. 540, 177 P.2d 869; B r i s t o l v.
B r i s t o l , 65 Mont. 508, 211 P. 205.
W have c a r e f u l l y examined t h e r e c o r d and f i n d no e r r o r i n
e
t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g t h e d i v o r c e t o defendant.
The second i s s u e concerns t h e awarding of $800 p e r month
s u p p o r t f o r defendant. P l a i n t i f f argues t h e r e i s n o t one i o t a
of evidence upon which t h e t r i a l c o u r t could have a r r i v e d a t t h a t
figure. W have r e a d t h e r e c o r d w i t h utmost c a r e and f i n d i t
e
f a i l s t o support t h e $800 award.
T h i s Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t
where such f i n d i n g s a r e j u s t i f i e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, b u t i t
w i l l s e t a s i d e f i n d i n g s n o t supported o r j u s t i f i e d . Judson, Adm.
v. Anderson, s u p r a ; Putnam v. Putnam, 86 Mont. 135, 282 P. 855.
I n reviewing t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , we f i n d t h e r e i s
a l a c k of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support such f i n d i n g s and con-
clusions. W n o t e , commencing w i t h f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 5 , which
e
h a s f i v e subparagraphs devoted t o a breakdown o f t h e p r o p e r t y
owned by t h e p a r t i e s and which a s s i g n s v a l u a t i o n s t o such p r o p e r t y ,
t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s do n o t f o l l o w t h e evidence:
1) Concerns t h e home, f a c i l i t i e s and t h e l o t . The v a l u a t i o n
s e t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t was $40,000. P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d he had
turned down an o f f e r of $80,000 f o r t h e home s e v e r a l y e a r s b e f o r e
the t r i a l . He made a n o f f e r of $40,000 f o r t h e home i n l i e u of
alimony t o defendant. Defendant t e s t i f i e d s h e thought t h e house
and l o t were worth a t l e a s t $50,000.
2) Concerns t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n , s t o r e and l o t and p l a c e s
t h e v a l u e a t $400,000 and p l a i n t i f f ' s one-half i n t e r e s t a t $200,000.
p l a i n t i f f ' s testimony i n d i c a t e d t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n grossed $70,000
a y e a r from 1962 t o 1970; t h a t t h e n e t p e r y e a r was $35,000 ( h i s
s h a r e being $17,500); t h a t he r e c e i v e d $15,000 when he r e t i r e d and
s t i l l r e c e i v e s $1,000 p e r month on a l e a s e t h a t i s t o b e renego-
t i a t e d i n 1975.
3) S e t s t h e t o t a l v a l u e of a l l s a v i n g s a c c o u n t s , c e r t i f i -
c a t e s o f d e p o s i t and U.S. Savings Bonds, h e l d i n j o i n t tenancy,
a t $100,000. P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d t h e savings t o t a l e d $40,000,
p l u s approximately $40,000 i n U.S. Bonds, making a t o t a l of $80,000.
I n answer t o a n i n t e r r o g a t o r y he s e t h i s s a v i n g s a t $39,000.
Viewing t h e testimony i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g s , we can f i n d no b a s i s f o r t h e $100,000 f i g u r e . A t best,
t h e items t o t a l $80,000.
4) Concerns r e f e r e n c e made t o f i v e s h a r e s of c a p i t a l s t o c k
i n t h e F i r s t S e c u r i t y Bank of West Yellowstone, Montana. N finding
o
o f v a l u e was made, n o r was t h e r e any testimony given a t t h e t r i a l
a s t o t h e v a l u e of t h e s t o c k ,
5 ) Concerns a pickup t r u c k owned by p l a i n t i f f ; a 1971 Ford
s t a t i o n wagon j o i n t l y owned by t h e p a r t i e s ; two b o a t s ; household
goods; and a b o a t t r a i l e r owned by p l a i n t i f f . N valuations a r e
o
given. Testimony a t t h e t r i a l and answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s a r e
confusing a s t o t h e y e a r models and v a l u e s of t h e pickup and t h e
Ford. The Ford was given t o defendant by p l a i n t i f f a t t h e time
of t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n . Although household f u r n i s h i n g s a r e u s u a l l y
included i n a house v a l u a t i o n , t h e r e was no s e p a r a t e testimony a s
t o t h e v a l u e of t h e f u r n i s h i n g s , except t h a t i n i n t e r r o g a t o r y 24
which gave a $2400 value. The ownership and v a l u a t i o n o f t h e two
b o a t s and a snowmobile was l e f t i n doubt by t h e v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s .
The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 7 r e c o r d s p l a i n t i f f ' s
income a s : $205 p e r month from s o c i a l s e c u r i t y ; $1,000 p e r month
from a l e a s e of t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n ; undetermined amount of i n t e r e s t
from s a v i n g s accounts, e t c . ; f o r a t o t a l of $2,000 p e r month.
Obviously t h i s t o a l monthly income i s erroneous. Plaintiff testi-
f i e d he r e c e i v e d t h e $205 p e r month s o c i a l s e c u r i t y , and i n t e r e s t
on s a v i n g s accounts, c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t s and bonds i n t h e
amount of $66.02 p e r q u a r t e r o r approximately $22 p e r month.
The j o i n t f e d e r a l income t a x r e t u r n f o r 1972, shows dividend and
i n t e r e s t income t o be $4,257.56 o r approximately $354.96 p e r month
f o r t h a t year. Here a g a i n , t h e f i g u r e s and testimony do n o t add.
The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 9 concerns t h e defendant
w i f e ' s income, I t n o t e s an approximate $10,000 i n h e r name o f which
$9,500 was given t o h e r by p l a i n t i f f . Then, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e
d i s p a r i t y of income and p r o p e r t y i n p l a i n t i f f ' s name, t h e c o u r t
f i n d s defendant e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s . At trial
p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d he gave defendant $9100 a t t h e time of t h e i r
s e p a r a t i o n i n a d d i t i o n t o a monthly payment of $400 f o r f o u r months,
o r a t o t a l of $1600. I n a d d i t i o n he t e s t i f i e d he gave h e r a n a d d i -
t i o n a l $1700 b r i n g i n g h i s t e s t i f i e d t o t a l t o $12,400. I n any e v e n t
t h e amount of money she r e c e i v e d i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g
of t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
The trial court's finding of fact No. 10 is directed to all
the property heretofore described and divides it equally based on
the parties' joint efforts. This finding is totally inconsistent
with its finding of fact No.12 which makes the actual division,
leaving plaintiff valued at $250,000 (court val~ation) and de-
fendant valued at $90,000 (court valuation).
Finding of fact No. 11 notes that defendant wife is not
trained for any occupation and her minimal support and maintenance
requirements amount to $800 per month. For the record we note
she asked for $750 in her cross-complaint; she testified that with
an equal division of the property she would need no alimony;
otherwise she would require from $600 to $700 per month alimony.
On cross-examination, she testified that if she could sell the home
for $50,000 and then invest the money she could get $200 per month
interest and would need only from $500 to $600 per month alimony.
The trial court's finding of fact No. 12 makes this property
division :
Husband
Interest in service station $200,000
(inc luding lease)
Bank Stock ?
Pickup Truck ?
Boat d Trailer ?
1/2 Savings,Bonds,etc. 40,000
Total assets found by
Court $250,000.
-
Wife
House with furniture $40,000
Boat (Inboard) ?
1971 Ford Wagon ?
1/2 Savings,Bonds,etc 40,000
Total assets found by
Court $90,000.
In addition, items not mentioned in the trial court's findings
but testified to or mentioned in the interrogatories were a life
insurance policy of plaintiff naming defendant wife as beneficiary
and valued in excess of $2000 and a jointly owned Travelease trailer
valued at $4000.
In view of the discrepancies above noted, it is obvious that
the case must be remanded to the trial court for a hearing to
establish a proper division of property and/or alimony for the
support of defendant.
Section 93-216, R.C.M. 1947, establishes the duty imposed
on this Court in determining questions of fact in equity cases.
Unless for good reason a new trial or the taking of additional
evidence is ordered in the district court, that court's decision
will be affirmed. In approaching our decision here, we are not
unmindful that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 93-216,
it is the settled rule that this Court will hesitate to overrule
findings, even though based on substantially conflicting evidence.
Kasala v. Kalispell Pee Wee Baseball League, 151 Plont. 109, 439
P.2d 65; Bouma v. Bynum Irrigation Dist., 139 Mont. 360, 364 P.2d
47. However in a case such as the instant one, where insufficient
evidence has been furnished to confirm the findings of the trial
court, this Court will not hesitate to return the cause to the
trial court.
plaintiff's third issue is directed to the awarding of
attorney fees in both hearings to defendant. Section 21-137,
R.C.M. 1947, provides the statutory authority for such awards and
states in pertinent part:
1t
While an action for divorce is pending the court
or judge may, in its or his discretion, require the
husband to pay as alimony any money necessary to en-
able the wife to support herself or her children, or
to prosecute or defend the action," (Emphasis added).
Over the years that this issue has been raised in cases
considered by this Court, from Bordeaux v. Bordeaux, 29 Mont.
478, 75 P. 359, to State ex rel. Sowerwine v. Dist. Ct., 145 Mont.
375, 401 P.2d 568, the Court has consistently held that a showing
of necessity is a condition precedent to the exercise of the
court's discretion to grant attorney fees. Therefore, the decree
is modified by striking the provision awarding defendant attorney
fees.
The cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a f u r t h e r
h e a r i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a proper d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y a n d / o r alimony
f o r t h e defendant.
Each p a r t y i s t o b e a r i t s own c o s t s .
W Concur:
e
-r-,,-,-,-,L,,-,-,--------------
C..
Chief J u s t i c e