No. 12679
I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A
F H F OTN
1974
BERNICE Q. GRANT,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
HARRY H. GRANT,
Defendant and Appellant.
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 W. W. Lessley and Honorable Nat A l l e n ,
Judges p r e s i d i n g .
Counse 1 o f Record :
For Appellant :
Small, C u m i n s , Hatch and Gregory Jackson, Helena,
Montana
Gregory Jackson argued and C a r l Hatch appeared,
Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Landoe, Gary and Donald E. White, Bozeman, Montana
Joseph B. Gary argued, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: November 20, 1974
Decided: FEB 1 9 1975
Filed: FEB '; 9 1975
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a d i v o r c e judgment e n t e r e d
September 1 0 , 1973, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County.
The a p p e a l i s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment awarding t h e w i f e
a l i m o n y , c h i l d s u p p o r t , a t t o r n e y f e e s and p r o p e r t y .
The c o u r t awarded t h e w i f e a d i v o r c e and c u s t o d y of f o u r
minor c h i l d r e n ; $100 p e r month alimony, $400 p e r month c h i l d
s u p p o r t and $400 a t t o r n e y f e e s . I t f u r t h e r awarded t h e w i f e a
l o t owned j o i n t l y ; o n e h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e back wages owed t h e
husband by I n t e r c o u n t y Development C o r p o r a t i o n ; t h e 1970 Mercury
a u t o m o b i l e j o i n t l y owned, and an a n t i q u e b a r . The c o u r t o r d e r e d
t h e husband t o c a r r y t h e n e c e s s a r y h e a l t h and m e d i c a l i n s u r a n c e
f o r and on b e h a l f o f t h e w i f e and t h e minor c h i l d r e n and t o pay
a l l f u t u r e m e d i c a l and d e n t a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d by t h e w i f e and
minor c h i l d r e n . Husband was a l s o o r d e r e d t o pay t h e r e m a i n d e r
o f t h e d e b t s and l i a b i l i t i e s c u r r e n t l y due and owing a s a r e s u l t
of t h e marriage. . The w i f e was awarded t h e p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n s
and household f u r n i s h i n g s of t h e p a r t i e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h p e r s o n a l
p o s s e s s i o n of c l o t h i n g o f t h e minor c h i l d r e n .
The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t i n 1971 husband e a r n e d $14,000
and i n 1972 he e a r n e d $15,000. H e i s now employed a t Employment
Link and n e t s $660 p e r month. H e c l a i m s he p e r s o n a l l y n e e d s $100
p e r month f o r r e n t and $100 p e r month f o r f o o d ; a n d , t h a t he i s
i n need of a c a r f o r h i s employment; t h a t i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e
amount o f money he now makes, he i s u n a b l e t o pay a l l t h e f a m i l y
d e b t s and s t i l l make t h e $500 p e r month a l i m o n y - c h i l d support
payments. The husband a l s o c l a i m s h e l a c k s t h e n e c e s s a r y t r a i n i n g
and e d u c a t i o n t o o b t a i n a b e t t e r p a y i n g j o b , and t h e j o b he now
h a s i s t h e b e s t employment a v a i l a b l e t o him a t t h i s t i m e .
The w i f e h a s had s e v e r a l q u a r t e r s of c o l l e g e , h a s been
employed a t v a r i o u s j o b s and h a s been l i c e n s e d a s a n u r s i n g home
a d m i n i s t r a t o r , such l i c e n s e has expired. She i s n o t p r e s e n t l y
employed b u t i s s e e k i n g employment t h a t w i l l n e t more t h a n $300,
t h e amount n e c e s s a r y f o r baby s i t t e r f e e s .
Husband p a i d o n l y $300 of t h e $500 a l i m o n y - c h i l d s u p p o r t
payment f o r August and o n l y $100 i n September. O October 1 2 ,
n
1973, h e f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l of t h e f i n a l judgment. Contempt
p r o c e e d i n g s and a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e were b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e
husband and s e t f o r h e a r i n g October 1 5 , 1973. A t t h e hearing
t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n and h u s b a n d ' s c o u n s e l withdrew from t h e c a s e .
I t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e w i f e h a s been g i v e n w e l f a r e a s s i s -
t a n c e and c h a r i t y from n e i g h b o r s and f r i e n d s . The husband main-
t a i n e d h e c o u l d n o t pay $500 p e r month o u t o f h i s income, w i t h h i s
obligations. The d i s t r i c t judge a t t h i s p o i n t s a i d : " I am r e a d y
t o modify t h i s d e c r e e r i g h t now." and t h e n f u r t h e r s a i d i t would
c o s t $1500 t o r e v e r s e h i s c o u r t by a p p e a l . A m i n u t e e n t r y and o r d e r
were e n t e r e d October 1 5 , 1973 h o l d i n g husband i n contempt and
o r d e r i n g him t o p u r g e h i m s e l f by p a y i n g $250 on o r b e f o r e October
1 8 , 1973 and a l i k e sum on t h e f i r s t day of e a c h month t h e r e a f t e r .
Husband r e t a i n e d new c o u n s e l October 2 4 , 1973 and on
t h a t day t h e new c o u n s e l d i s q u a l i f i e d t h e p r e s i d i n g judge and
f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l o f b o t h t h e judgment of September 10 and
October 1 5 , 1973. T h e r e a f t e r , on November 23, 1973, husband
f i l e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t t o c l a r i f y t h e judgment d a t e d
October 1 5 , 1973. The d i s q u a l i f i e d judge c a l l e d i n a judge from
a n o t h e r d i s t r i c t on November 28, 1973 and t h a t judge a c c e p t e d
j u r i s d i c t i o n on December 3 , 1973.
A p p e l l a n t husband b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l from b o t h judgments
and p r e s e n t s t h e s e t h r e e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w :
1. Were t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e c o u r t r e g a r d i n g a l i m o n y ,
s u p p o r t , and p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t j u s t i f i e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ?
2. Did t h e c o u r t err i n awarding p l a i n t i f f w i f e a t t o r n e y
fees?
3. Are t h e Montana s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g t h e award o f
alimony and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n d i v o r c e a c t i o n s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ?
Rule 38, M.R.App.Civ.P., r e q u i r e s t h a t when t h e s t a t e
o f Montana o r i t s a g e n c i e s o r employees a r e n o t p a r t i e s t o a
s u i t , t h e a p p e l l a n t must, upon f i l i n g t h e r e c o r d , g i v e immed-
i a t e n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g t o t h e Supreme C o u r t of t h e e x i s t e n c e
of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s , s p e c i f y i n g t h e s e c t i o n of t h e c o d e
o r c h a p t e r of t h e s e s s i o n law t o be c o n s t r u e d s o t h a t t h e C o u r t
c a n n o t i f y t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l of t h e s t a t e of Montana. Fail-
u r e t o comply w i t h t h i s r u l e p r e v e n t s t h e n o t i c e from b e i n g
g i v e n t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and t h e r e f o r e he h a s no o p p o r t u n i t y
t o a p p e a r and defend t h e a c t s of t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e . Under
t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t proceed t o answer t h e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s a s Rule 3 8 , M.R.App.Civ.P., was n o t
followed.
The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i s n o t e x t e n s i v e and p o r t r a y s
t h e g e n e r a l problems found i n d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s where t h e r e
a r e minor c h i l d r e n and n o t enough money t o s a t i s f y t h e n e e d s of
a l l p a r t i e s and hence no s o l u t i o n i s g o i n g t o be e n t i r e l y s a t i s -
f a c t o r y t o t h e p a r t i e s inasmuch as s u c h s o l u t i o n s under t h e s e
c o n d i t i o n s j u s t do n o t e x i s t .
W e a r e bound i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g minor c h i l d r e n t o l o o k
f o r a s o l u t i o n which w i l l s e r v e t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s , a s i s done
i n awarding c u s t o d y i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M.
1947. There a r e a number of r e p o r t e d c a s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e same
p r i n c i p l e by t h i s C o u r t d u r i n g 1974.
W f i n d no a b u s e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e
e
f i r s t award of a d o l l a r amount t o t h e f a m i l y of $500 p e r month
based on t h e needs of f o u r minor c h i l d r e n . W a l s o recognize
e
t h a t t h e f a t h e r a p p a r e n t l y c a n n o t pay t h a t amount a t t h i s t i m e
a s t h e t r i a l judge found i n t h e second p r o c e e d i n g and reduced
t h e amount t o $250 p e r month f o r t h e i r s u p p o r t u n t i l f u r t h e r
o r d e r of t h e c o u r t .
T h e r e f o r e , we h o l d t h e o r i g i n a l judgment e n t e r e d
September 1 0 , 1973 t o have been m o d i f i e d by t h e judgment e n t e r e d
October 1 5 , 1973, which p r o v i d e s a monthly payment o f $250 f o r
t h e s u p p o r t of t h e minor c h i l d r e n u n t i l a f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e
t r i a l c o u r t , based on a change of c i r c u m s t a n c e s from t h o s e t h a t
e x i s t i n t h e record before t h i s Court. The w i f e i s awarded $200
attorney f e e s f o r t h i s appeal. I n view of t h e f i n a n c i a l con-
d i t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l s c h e d u l e payment
t o conform t o t h e a b i l i t y of t h e husband t o make s u i t a b l e pay-
ments.
#
Justice
W e concur: .
.-
-----
C
1 I
. . - L - & h & c - L : - - * h L -' 3 - ~ - &
I
I
Justices