No. 13711
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
CARLEY R. CROMWELL,
Petitioner and Appellant,
GARDNER CROMWELL,
Respondent and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana
Larry Riley argued, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Mulroney, Delaney, Dalby and Mudd, Missoula,
Montana
Dexter L. Delaney argued, Missoula, Montana
Submitted: September 22, 1977
Filed :
M r . 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 Court.
Appellant Carley R. Cromwell brought t h i s a c t i o n t o
d i s s o l v e h e r marriage t o Gardner Cromwell, The cause was t r i e d
before t h e Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, d i s t r i c t judge, Missoula
County, who on November 30, 1976, handed down a f i n a l decree,
Appellant claimed t h e r i g h t t o receive a p o r t i o n of t h e j o i n t l y
acquired property of t h e p a r t i e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h a t t o r n e y f e e s and
support. The c o u r t , having heard t h e evidence, decreed t h e
marriage be dissolved and a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s be divided i n
t h i s manner:
1. To t h e p e t i t i o n e r , Carley Cromwell:
a. The family home, together with a l l items of
personal property contained t h e r e i n .
b. The p a r t i e s ' i n t e r e s t i n property located i n
Hawaii.
2. To t h e respondent, Gardner Cromwell:
a. The retirement and o t h e r pension b e n e f i t s which
he had b u i l t up during h i s years a s a law p r o f e s s o r a t t h e
University of Montana.
From t h i s property settlement Carley Cromwell appeals. The
only i s s u e on appeal i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s
property d i v i s i o n and maintenance (alimony) award,
A d i s t r i c t c o u r t has f a r reaching d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s o l v i n g
property d i v i s i o n s , and i t s judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d u n l e s s
t h e r e i s a c l e a r abuse of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . Eschenburg v. Eschenburg,
Mont . , 557 P.2d 1014, 33 St.Rep. 1198 (1976).
I n Roe v. Roe, Mon t . , 556 P.2d 1246, 33 St.Rep.
863, 866 (1976), quoting from P o r t e r v. P o r t e r , 155 Mont. 451,
457, 473 P.2d 538 (1970), t h i s Court s t a t e d :
"'* * * I n determinirg whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t
abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e question i s n o t whether
t h e reviewing c o u r t agrees with t h e t r i a l c o u r t ,
but, rather, did the t r i a l court i n the exercise
of i t s d i s c r e t i o n a c t a r b i t r a r i l y without t h e em-
ployment.~£ conscientious judgment o r exceed t h e
bounds of reason, i n view of a l l t h e circumstances,
ignoring recognized p r i n c i p l e s r e s u l t i n g i n sub-
s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e . "' 33 St.Rep. 866.
S e c t i o n 48-321, R.C.M. 1947, of t h e Montana Uniform
Marriage and Divorce Act, provides i n p a r t :
'I* * * the court *** shall*** e q u i t a b l y appor-
t i o n between t h e p a r t i e s t h e property and a s s e t s
belonging t o e i t h e r o r both however and whenever
acquired, and whether t h e t i t l e t h e r e t o i s i n t h e
name of t h e husband o r wife o r both. I n making
apportionment t h e c o u r t s h a l l consider t h e d u r a t i o n
of t h e marriage *** t h e age, h e a l t h , s t a t i o n ,
occupation, amount and sources of income, v o c a t i o n a l
s k i l l s , employability, e s t a t e , l i a b i l i t i e s and t h e
needs of each of t h e p a r t i e s *** and t h e opportunity
of each f o r f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l a s s e t s and
income. The c o u r t s h a l l a l s o consider t h e contribu-
t i o n o r d i s s i p a t i o n of value of t h e r e s p e c t i v e
e s t a t e s , and t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of a spouse a s a home-
maker o r t o t h e family u n i t . *** the court s h a l l
consider those c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h e o t h e r spouse t o
t h e marriage, including t h e nonmone t a r y c o n t r i b u t i o n
of a homemaker ** *.I1
Section 48-322, R.C.M. 1947, provides t h e c o u r t may g r a n t
maintenance t o a spouse i f i t f i n d s t h e spouse seeking mainten-
ance :
a . Lacks s u f f i c i e n t property t o provide f o r h e r reason-
a b l e needs, and
b. i s unable t o support h e r s e l f through a p p r o p r i a t e
employment.
Section 48-322 f u r t h e r provides t h e maintenance o r d e r
s h a l l be i n such amounts and f o r such periods of time a s t h e
court deems j u s t , and t h e court s h a l l consider a l l relevant
f a c t o r s including:
a. The f i n a n c i a l resources of the party seeking mainten-
ance, including m a r i t a l property apportioned t o h e r , and her
a b i l i t y t o meet her needs independently;
b. The time necessary t o acquire s u f f i c i e n t education
o r t r a i n i n g t o enable the party seeking maintenance t o f i n d
appropriate employment;
c. The standard of l i v i n g established during the marriage;
d. The duration of t h e marriage;
e. The age, and the physical and emotional condition
of the spouse seeking maintenance; and
f. The a b i l i t y of the spouse from whom maintenance i s
sought t o meet h i s needs while meeting those of the spouse
seeking maintenance.
I t i s important here t o review what transpired a t the
d i s t r i c t court level. There had been an agreed property s e t t l e -
ment submitted t o the court. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t judge from
the beginning t o l d the p a r t i e s t h a t he did not believe i n
alimony. Counsel f o r Carley Cromwell pointed out t o the judge
t h a t i n making a reasonable d i v i s i o n of the a s s e t s , t h e r e had
t o be a recognition t h a t the most valuable a s s e t of t h e
marriage was the job, education and t r a i n i n g of Gardner Cromwell.
The c o u r t r e p l i e d there was no reason why Carley Cromwell could
n o t use her t r a i n i n g a s a nurse and went on t o s t a t e he was not
going t o give her the r i g h t t o have any money from her husband.
Carley Cromwell t r i e d t o amend her p e t i t i o n under Rule 3 4 ,
Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure, t o increase the amount of
alimony which she was asking. I n response t o t h i s attempt t o
amend, t h e judge s t a t e d :
"I d o n ' t know what type of testimony you want
t o put i n , I have a l r e a d y t o l d you a s a matter
of law t h a t I a m n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n alimony. I ' m
going t o t r y t o a d j u s t i t some o t h e r way. I f I
do make an Order, it w i l l n o t be alimony, i t w i l l
be t h a t t h e Property Settlement Agreement i s s h o r t
by e x a c t number of d o l l a r s t h a t t h e w i f e should
receive from t h e husband * * *. That' s t h e way I
intend t o do i t . N w apparently you a r e not
o
s a t i s f i e d w i t h m b e l i e f on t h i s p o i n t so t h e r e i s
y
going t o be an appeal. I suggest we have t h e s h o r t e s t
record p o s s i b l e s o t h a t you can appeal on whether
o r n o t t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on t h e law on m p a r t
y
i s proper o r n o t . I t
It i s r e a d i l y apparent from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t record
t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t judge i n h i s e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n
over t h e property s e t t l e m e n t abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n when he
ignored t h e mandates contained i n s e c t i o n s 48-321 and 48-322,
R.C.M. 1947, and t h a t t h e record r e v e a l s he refused t o con-
s i d e r t h e needs of a p p e l l a n t f o r some f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e
during t h e t r a n s i t i o n from housewife t o a s i n g l e person.
The judgment of d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage i s affirmed.
The judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e property s e t t l e m e n t of t h e
p a r t i e s i s reversed and remanded f o r a proper hearing t o de-
termine property d i v i s i o n , taking i n t o account t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
law. I n view of t h e l e n g t h of time t h a t Carley C r o m e l l has
gone with no support, i t i s f u r t h e r ordered t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
hold a hearing on temporary support w i t h i n a period of 30 days
a f t e r r e m i t t i t u r i s s u e s and i n t h e event t h i s has n o t been done
w i t h i n t h e time s e t f o r t h , i t i s hereby ordered t h a t Carley
C r o m e l l s h a l l be awarded t h e sum of $500 per month a s tem-
porary support from d a t e of r e m i t t i t u r and s h a l l continue u n t i l
a reasonable amount has been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
- 5 -
Remittitur shall issue immediately with this Opinion.
/us t ice
We Concur:
f , ,
'
1
-
. -
- i ,/ x:
I
<
/
. *
d.
Chief Justice