No. 13664
IN THE SUPREI.IE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
JERRY T. JEROME,
Petitioner and Respondent,
DOROTHY S. JEROME,
Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District,
Honorable Gord-on R. Bennett, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record :
For Appellant:
Dorothy Stevens, Pro Se, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Montana
Cause submitted on briefs.
Submitted: January 9, 1978
Decided: .FEB 1- 1978
Filed:
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 i s an appeal from an order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court,
Lewis and Clark County, g r a n t i n g a d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e marriage of
Dorothy S. Jerome and J e r r y T . Jerome. The p o r t i o n s of t h e
decree i n i s s u e a r e those r e l a t i n g t o c h i l d support, maintenance,
and property d i s t r i b u t i o n .
The record r e v e a l s t h e p a r t i e s were married December 11,
1952. Three c h i l d r e n were born of t h e marriage; only one, a
12 year o l d g i r l , i s s t i l l a minor. There i s no d i s p u t e t h a t
Dorothy should have custody of t h i s minor c h i l d .
J e r r y i s employed by Mountain B e l l Telephone Company and
has an annual income of between $18,000 and $19,000 per y e a r ,
which i s approximately t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l he w i l l be a b l e t o reach
i n h i s present position. Dorothy has worked b r i e f l y a t s e c r e t a r i a l
types of p o s i t i o n s , b u t has g e n e r a l l y been a housewife f o r
twenty-five years.
The a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s c o n s i s t almost e n t i r e l y of r e a l
property. By t h e f i n a l decree of d i s s o l u t i o n , entered September
20, 1976, Dorothy was awarded t h e family home; a small home
next door; and t h e proceeds of t h e s a l e of some p a r t i a l l y de-
veloped land, s o l d f o r about $8,000. J e r r y was awarded an o l d
mining claim c o s t i n g about $30 and approximately s i x a c r e s of
land west of Helena, Montana.
The c o u r t a l s o awarded Dorothy c h i l d support i n t h e amount
of $150 per month and monthly maintenance payments of $300 t h e
f i r s t y e a r , $200 t h e second yeaq and $100 t h e t h i r d year. A
r e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e maintenance i s s u e i s scheduled a f t e r t h e
t h i r d year.
Dorothy was represented by counsel a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court
b u t b r i n g s t h i s appeal pro s e . The i s s u e s r a i s e d by Dorothy
may be consolidatea i n t o t h r e e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s :
(1) Error by t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n f a i l i n g t o consider
v a r i o u s documents ;
(2) Several a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of Dorothy's c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t s ; and
(3) Lack of evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court's
f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g t o property d i s t r i b u t i o n , maintenance and
c h i l d support.
I s s u e (1). Dorothy a t t a c h e d t o h e r b r i e f on appeal
v a r i o u s documents she prepared t o show t h e income and expenses
of t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e value of h e r s e r v i c e s during t h e marriage.
None of t h e s e documents were o f f e r e d i n t o evidence a t t r i a l , n e i t h e r
was t h e r e any o f f e r of proof made regarding them. A s such, t h e s e
documents a r e not a p a r t of t h e record on appeal and w i l l n o t be
considered by t h i s Court. P i l l s b u r y v. Blumenthal, (1950), 58
N.M. 422, 272 P.2d 326.
Issue (2). Dorothy c i t e s Sections 3, 9, 1 and 1 7 , A r t i c l e
1
11, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Fourth, F i f t h and Eighth
Amendments t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . She s t a t e s , with-
o u t f u r t h e r explanation, t h a t h e r r i g h t s under t h e s e provisions
were v i o l a t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W n o t e no such arguments
e
were made i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court e i t h e r a t t r i a l o r i n h e r v a r i o u s
post t r i a l motions. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s a r e waived i f n o t
r a i s e d a t t h e e a r l i e s t opportunity. Johnson v. Doran, (1975),
167 Mont. 501, 511, 540 P.2d 306. Dorothy c l e a r l y has waived
h e r r i g h t t o r a i s e these i s s u e s before t h i s Court.
Issue (3). This i s s u e i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused
i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e awards of c h i l d support and maintenance,
and i n t h e f i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e property. The standard by
which t h i s Court reviews such an a c t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court
was r e c e n t l y s e t f o r t h i n Berthiaume v. Berthiaume , (1977) , -
Mont . , 567 P.2d 1388, 34 St.Rep. 921, 924, c i t i n g P o r t e r
v. P o r t e r , (1970), 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538:
"* * * I n determining 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 q u e s t i o n 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 , b u t , r a t h e r , d i d t h e
t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e e x e r c i s e 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 employment of 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 s u b s t a n t i a l
injustice ."
W have reviewed t h e e n t i r e record and f i n d no abuse of
e
d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. There was no e r r o r .
The judgment i s a f f irmed.
W Concur:
e
4
Justices