No. 13231
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
H OR F F
1976
DANNIE E G U D ,
NLN
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
CLINTON E. ENGLUND,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Smith and Harper, Helena, Montana
Charles A. Smith, 1 1 argued, Helena, Montana
1
For Respondent :
Thomas A. Dowling argued, County Attorney, Helena,
Montana
Submitted: March 1, 1976
Decided: /h/\ti 2 $ 13/o
I, ;*b .
,
Filed : , '
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , L e w i s and
C l a r k County. The a c t i o n w a s i n s t i t u t e d a s a motion t o v a c a t e
a p o r t i o n o f a judgment made and e n t e r e d i n a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g
some f i v e y e a r s ago. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion and
t h i s appeal followed.
A f t e r some t h i r t y y e a r s of m a r r i a g e t h e w i f e i n s t i t u t e d
p r o c e e d i n g s f o r s e p a r a t e m a i n t e n a n c e i n 1969. The husband
counterclaimed asking f o r a divorce. Following a h e a r i n g t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e husband a d i v o r c e . The d e c r e e o r d e r e d
a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n c o n s i s t i n g of f o u r i n s t a l l m e n t lump sum pay-
ments of $2,500 e a c h , o v e r a two y e a r p e r i o d , by t h e husband t o
t h e w i f e , w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y conveyances from t h e
w i f e t o t h e husband. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e husband
t o pay $400 p e r month alimony. Immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e d e c r e e
t h e w i f e f i l e d a motion f o r a new t r i a l a l l e g i n g i r r e g u l a r i t i e s
i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s by t h e c o u r t , i n t h a t i t d i d n o t r u l e on
m a t e r i a l f a c t s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s . Hearing
was had on t h e motion b u t t h e c o u r t t o o k no a c t i o n . No a p p e a l
was t a k e n from t h e d e c r e e .
T h e r e a f t e r t h e husband s o u g h t enforcement of t h a t p o r t i o n
of t h e d e c r e e d i r e c t i n g t h e s i g n i n g o v e r of c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y t o
him and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e w i f e i n contempt and o r d e r e d
h e r t o e x e c u t e c e r t a i n d e e d s and documents t o t h e husband. She
complied and t h e husband made t h e $400 monthly payments u n t i l
1 9 7 5 when he moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e alimony award payments on t h e
grounds t h e y were v o i d b e c a u s e t h e d i v o r c e w a s g r a n t e d t o him.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e alimony award was v o i d , b u t h e l d t h e
husband was e s t o p p e d from d e n y i n g i t s v a l i d i t y a f t e r r e l y i n g upon
t h e d e c r e e t o compel t h e w i f e t o t r a n s f e r c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y t o him.
The husband a p p e a l s and r a i s e s t h e s e i s s u e s :
1. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
power o r a u t h o r i t y t o award alimony t o t h e w i f e b e c a u s e t h e
divorce w a s not granted t o t h e wife f o r an offense of t h e
husband.
2. S e c t i o n 21-139, R.C.M. 1947, t h e s e c t i o n g o v e r n i n g
t h e award of alimony o n l y t o t h e w i f e i n d i v o r c e a c t i o n s i s
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l under A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n s 4 and 1 7 , 1972
Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ; A r t i c l e 111, S e c t i o n 27 of t h e 1889 Montana
C o n s t i t u t i o n ; and t h e F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments o f t h e
United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n .
The t r i a l judge i n t h i s c a s e had d i f f i c u l t y i n t r y i n g
t o under s t a n d what had moved t h e t r i a l judge i n t h e o r i g i n a l
d i v o r c e a c t i o n i n t e r m i n g t h e award t o t h e w i f e a s alimony. In
a memorandum and o r d e r he n o t e d :
"There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n o f t h e
d e c r e e (denominated ' F i n d i n g s o f F a c t , C o n c l u s i o n s
o f Law and Judgment' and f i l e d May 1 4 , 1970) pro-
v i d i n g f o r alimony payments by t h e d e f e n d a n t , who
w a s g r a n t e d t h e d i v o r c e , was v o i d a b i n i t i o , a s
such. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d , however, t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s
o r d e r i t s e l f s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e payments r e q u i r e d
w e r e n o t alimony, a s d e s c r i b e d , b u t payments t o be
made a s a p a r t of a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , n o t a g r e e d
upon between t h e p a r t i e s . The f i r s t o r d e r of t h e
c o u r t p r o v i d e s f o r f o u r payments o f $2,500.00 e a c h
'as a p a r t i a l p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . ' No r e f e r e n c e
i s made t o any o t h e r p a r t of t h e ' p r o p e r t y s e t t l e -
m e n t ' , which s u g g e s t s , i n f e r e n t i a l l y , t h a t t h e o t h e r
p a r t may be t h e payments t h a t were denominated
'alimony.' However, t h e t h i r d p a r t of t h e o r d e r
deepens t h e m y s t e r y by p r o v i d i n g f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n
of t h e ' a l i m o n y ' upon p r o p e r showing. If the
' a l i m o n y ' w e r e t o be deemed a p a r t o f t h e ' p r o p e r t y
s e t t l e m e n t ' t h e n m o d i f i c a t i o n would n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e .
W a r e , then, a t a l o s s t o determine j u s t e x a c t l y
e
what was i n t e n d e d by t h e c o u r t i n r e g a r d t o t h e
payments t h e d e f e n d a n t now w i s h e s t o s e t a s i d e .
"Nor do I have any d o u b t t h a t t h e payments made t o
d a t e i n compliance w i t h t h e ' a l i m o n y ' o r d e r do n o t
and c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t e r a t i f i c a t i o n o f t h a t o r d e r ,
i f t h e order i t s e l f i s void. It i s w e l l s e t t l e d
t h a t a v o i d o r d e r c a n n o t be made e f f e c t i v e by com-
pliance. "
However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t g o e s on t o h o l d t h a t due t o t h e
f a c t a p p e l l a n t had s u c c e s s f u l l y t a k e n a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e
the decree, he was estopped from challenging its validity.
We agree.
We do not agree that the order was void.
- The court was in jurisdiction at the time it made
its decree and what obviously was intended to be a part of the
"property settlement" became mistakenly labeled "alimony". Here
the wife who had worked for most of the marital years in the
business office of appellant's plumbing business, helped in the
accumulation of considerable property. She signed over those
interests at a time after she incurred a serious physical nerve
disease and could no longer be a productive part of the labor
market. Her medical and drug expenses had become far more costly
than those of a person of her age. We find the $400 payments to
be a part of the "property settlement" and not walimony" as re-
ferred to by the district court.
Appellant's second issue relates to the constitutionality
of section 21-139, R.C.M. 1947. Having decided the alimony argu-
ment, it is unnecessary to discuss the constitutional issue, but
we note the question was not raised in the district court and
could not on appeal be argued before this Court. It is fundamental
that on appeal this Court will consider for review only those
issues raised before the trial court. Spencer v. Robertson, 151
Mont. 507, 445 P.2d 48; State Highway Commission v. Milanovich,
142 Mont. 410, 384 P.2d 752; Clark v. Worrall, 146 Mont. 374,
The judgment is affirmed.
L
Justice
\
We concur: / \
Justi I
sitting in place of Mr. Chief Justice