No. 12719
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1974
JEANETTE R. FAUTSCH,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
ROMAN A . FAUTSCH,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
R i c h a r d J . Conklin a r g u e d , White S u l p h u r S p r i n g s ,
Montana
F o r Respondent:
Huppert and S w i n d l e h u r s t , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
J o s e p h T. S w i n d l e h u r s t a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
Submitted: September 1 9 , 1974
Decided : JAN 2 4 1975
Filed :
SF 8 4 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 by t h e husband from t h e p r o p e r t y
s e t t l e m e n t and d i v i s i o n p o r t i o n o f a f i n a l judgment of d i v o r c e
g r a n t e d t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , County of P a r k , on
November 27, 1973.
The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d December 3 , 1949. The w i f e w a s
a t e a c h e r and c o n t i n u e d t o t e a c h f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e y e a r s
u n t i l 1953, t h e n was o u t of t h e p r o f e s s i o n u n t i l 1958. During
t h i s t i m e two c h i l d r e n were born, a s o n , a g e 17 y e a r s a t t h e t i m e
o f t h e d i v o r c e , and a d a u g h t e r who w a s k i l l e d i n a f a m i l y a u t o -
mobile a c c i d e n t i n 1965. The w i f e h a s n o t t a u g h t s c h o o l s i n c e
t h e d a u g h t e r w a s k i l l e d i n 1965. The husband i s a sawyer f o r a
lumber m i l l and a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e , on a s e v e n day work
week, e a r n i n g $1,000 p e r month based on a n h o u r l y r a t e . During
t h e m a r r i a g e t h e husband worked a t odd j o b s i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s
r e g u l a r employment and b o t h p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t h e i r wages t o
t h e j o i n t a s s e t s under t h e p r i n c i p a l c o n t r o l of t h e w i f e .
I n 1965 t h e p a r t i e s a c q u i r e d The S l e e p i n g G i a n t Motel
i n L i v i n g s t o n , Montana. The p u r c h a s e p r i c e w a s $30,000 and t h e
b a l a n c e d u e a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e w a s $7,348.55. This
p u r c h a s e w a s made w i t h j o i n t e a r n i n g s and a l o a n of $3,000 from
t h e w i f e ' s mother. I n 1972, t h e m o t e l g r o s s e d $10,056. Based
on i t s e a r n i n g s , t h e w i f e e s t i m a t e d t h e m o t e l ' s v a l u e a t $30,000-
$35,000. The husband e s t i m a t e d t h e v a l u e of t h e m o t e l a t $75,000.
However, t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h e m o t e l was l i s t e d f o r s a l e a t
$100,000. The p a r t i e s f o r m e r l y owned a home i n L i v i n g s t o n ,
Montana, which had been s o l d . A t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce, t h e r e
was $6,235.36 owed t o t h e p a r t i e s from t h e b u y e r s .
The w i f e had i n v e s t e d $10,000 i n h e r name o n l y i n a b u s i -
n e s s known as Chico Hot S p r i n g s and had a p p r c x i m a t e l y $1,900 i n
a savings account. She t e s t i f i e d t h e s e monies were p a r t of a
s e t t l e m e n t from t h e a c c i d e n t which r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e a t h of
t h e i r daughter.
The w i f e c o n t e n d s s h e was p h y s i c a l l y u n a b l e t o t e a c h
a f t e r 1965 because of i n j u r i e s and c h i l d b e a r i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s ,
a l t h o u g h s h e h a s o p e r a t e d t h e motel from t h e t i m e it w a s pur-
chased.
The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h r e e y e a r s b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e
t h e husband s t o p p e d c o n t r i b u t i n g h i s c h e c k s t o t h e j o i n t a c c o u n t s
of t h e p a r t i e s . However, t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s t h a t a b o u t t h i s t i m e
s h e broke o f f t h e m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p and t o o k up r e s i d e n c e
a l o n e i n a new mobile home s h e purchased w i t h j o i n t f u n d s , t h e
v a l u e o f which was n e v e r r e v e a l e d and t h e t i t l e was p l a c e d i n
h e r name. She a l s o purchased a c a r w i t h j o i n t f u n d s and p l a c e d
t i t l e i n h e r name. The make and model of t h e c a r was n o t r e -
vealed i n t h e proceedings. The husband owns a 1966 Ford p i c k u p .
Testimony a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h i s p e r i o d of t i m e b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e
c o u l d have been c l o s e r t o two y e a r s t h a n t h r e e . During t h i s
p e r i o d of t i m e u n t i l t h e h e a r i n g on t h e d i v o r c e , s h e s u p p o r t e d
h e r s e l f and son from j o i n t f u n d s and m o t e l e a r n i n g s .
The t e s t i m o n y i s a t b e s t c o n f u s e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e p a r t i e s '
s a v i n g s a c c o u n t s and c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t s which were j o i n t a c c o u n t s .
Account #I2604 w i t h t h e E h p i r e F e d e r a l Saving and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n ,
i n t h e name of J e a n e t t e R . & Roman F a u t s c h , a s t r u s t e e s f o r
S t a n l e y 2 . F a u t s c h , t h e i r s o n , was c l o s e d on June 3 0 , 1972. The
b a l a n c e a t t h a t t i m e was $3,715.51. The w i f e c l a i m s t h e a c c o u n t
w a s c l o s e d , b u t immediately r e o p e n e d , t h e r e b y e l i m i n a t i n g t h e
h u s b a n d ' s name from t h e a c c o u n t . There was, however, no e v i d e n c e
presented t o t h e c o u r t v e r i f y i n g t h e reopening, only a letter
from t h e bank showing t h a t i t had been c l o s e d . Another s a v i n g s
a c c o u n t , #7136, w a s c l o s e d a t Empire F e d e r a l Savings and Loan
A s s o c i a t i o n , which was i n j o i n t t e n a n c y between t h e p a r t i e s .
A t t h e t i m e i t was c l o s e d t h e b a l a n c e was $634.84. There was
t e s t i m o n y from t h e w i f e t h a t t h e r e w a s $1,900 i n s a v i n g s a t
Empire F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n . Whether a c c o u n t
#7136 i s t h e a c c o u n t s h e i s r e f e r r i n g t o i s n o t made p l a i n from
t h e evidence presented. The husband a l s o c l a i m s t h e r e i s a l o a n
of $4,000 by t h e w i f e t o a r e l a t i v e from a j o i n t a c c o u n t i n a
Spokane s a v i n g s a c c o u n t , i n t h e w i f e ' s name.
Testimony a l s o r e v e a l s t h e g r o s s e a r n i n g s from t h e m o t e l
i n 1972 may n o t be c o r r e c t , and t h e r e i s some c o n f u s i o n c o n c e r n -
ing t h e o r i g i n a l purchase p r i c e .
The c o u r t awarded b o t h p a r t i e s a d i v o r c e ; c u s t o d y of t h e
minor c h i l d was awarded t o t h e mother w i t h $150 p e r month c h i l d
support u n t i l majority. The w i f e was awarded t h e m o t e l s u b j e c t
t o i t s indebtedness. The c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e husband t o p r o v i d e
h o s p i t a l and m e d i c a l c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d and w i f e . The husband
was awarded t h e b a l a n c e due on t h e house c o n t r a c t i n t h e amount
of $6,235.56 and t h e c o u r t a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t i f t h e w i f e e v e r
d e s i r e d t o s e l l t h e m o t e l t h e p r o c e e d s i n e x c e s s of $50,000
would be d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between t h e p a r t i e s .
There i s no q u e s t i o n t h e husband d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e a n
e q u a l s h a r e o r more t o t h e j o i n t a s s e t s accumulated d u r i n g a
m a r r i a g e i n e x c e s s of 2 0 y e a r s . The c o u r t found n e i t h e r p a r t y
t o be a t f a u l t i n awarding t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e . There i s no
c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y a n u n e q u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e
assets of t h e m a r r i a g e . Only t h e w i f e and husband t e s t i f i e d
before the court. She c l a i m s t o have been i n j u r e d b e a r i n g h i s
c h i l d r e n and i n t h e 1965 a c c i d e n t and t h i s seems t o be a b a s i s
f o r preference. Yet, no i n d e p e n d e n t e v i d e n c e of h e r condition
was produced nor c o u l d c o u n s e l e n l i g h t e n t h i s Court i n o r a l
argument. Funds a r e c l a i m e d by t h e w i f e a s a r e s u l t of t h e 1965
a c c i d e n t b u t no s u b s t a n t i a l o r c l e a r e v i d e n c e was o f f e r e d t o
support t h i s a s s e r t i o n . There seems t o have been an award f o r
the wrongful death of the daughter, damages to the son and wife
but no evidence of the amounts involved or the husband's interest
in these awards.
The testimony is clear that the wife handled the business
accounts and assets for the family and she has not met her burden
in accounting for them. The evidence in these areas is vague
and confusing as well as in conflict. This Court will not disturb
findings of the district court where supported and justified by
substantial evidence. Judson, Administrator v. Anderson, 118
Mont. 106, 117, 165 P.2d 198. However, this Court cannot affirm
a judgment where there is insufficient credible evidence to sup-
port it. We therefore affirm that portion of the judgment award-
ing the parties a divorce and the wife custody of the minor child,
but remand for further hearing the property settlement portion
of the judgment.
Specifically, a determination must be made of how much
money was awarded to the parties for the death of their daughter
caused by the 1965 automobile accident; how much of that amount
was awarded the parties for a wrongful death action; and how
much was awarded to members of the family individually for injuries
suffered from the accident, and the husband's share of the wife's
award.
Expert medical testimony should be presented to the court
demonstrating the exact nature of the wife's medical problem, and
the extent of disability caused by these medical problems. There
should be expert testimony as to the present value of The Sleeping
Giant Motel, the trailer house, and automobile purchased by the
wife from joint funds. There should also be some type of record
offered to provide an accounting of the motel's income for the
past three years.
Finally, there must be a complete disclosure by both
parties of the money each of them have in savings accounts,
checking accounts, safety deposit boxes or whatever. All joint
assets accumulated during the marriage and their disposition
should be revealed to the court.
The judgment of the district court granting the divorce
and custody of the minor child is affirmed. The distribution
of the property award by the court is reversed and remanded for
further hearing not
--,--
I'
-
A,,-
. *
2% -c L
'6
-Lt2=2
& ----
,
! , , /
- - A ^
& , ^ _
.?-
Chief Justice
Justices (j