No. 14419
I N THE SUPF!ENJ3 C W O THE STATE O M3WANA
O F F
1979
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
JANET M. McENlLD,
Petitioner and Respondent,
-VS-
CHRISrOPHER J. m O A D
DNL,
Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal frcnn: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Ftemrd:
For A p ~ l l a n t :
Dave B. Kinnard, Billings, Mxkana
For Respondent:
Gary Beiswanger, Billings, mntana
S u h i t t e d on b r i e f s : M y 9, 1979
a
Decided:
SEF - 5 1979
Filed: Stf .+ 1q9
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea 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 an a p p e a l by t h e f a t h e r from two o r d e r s o f t h e
Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , one which r e f u s e d t o
modify a d i v o r c e s e t t l e m e n t and d e c r e e p l a c i n g c u s t o d y i n
t h e mother, and t h e second from an o r d e r awarding t h e mother
a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s g e n e r a t e d from h e r d e f e n s e of t h e
f a t h e r ' s modification p e t i t i o n .
The a p p e a l from t h e December 22, 1977 o r d e r i s d i s m i s s e d
a s it came a f t e r t h e f i l i n g d e a d l i n e ; however, t h e o r d e r
g r a n t i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e mother i s r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e t h e
t i m e had e x p i r e d w i t h i n which t h e mother had a d u t y t o a c t .
O J a n u a r y 5 , 1976, t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t
n
Court e n t e r e d a d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n which i n c o r p o r a t e d a
s e p a r a t i o n agreement e x p r e s s i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' d e s i r e t o g i v e
t h e mother c u s t o d y o f t h e i r two minor c h i l d r e n , s u b j e c t t o
v i s i t a t i o n by t h e f a t h e r . However, on August 1 7 , 1977, t h e
f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r modification of t h e p r i o r
d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e and a l l e g e d t h a t c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n
s h o u l d b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o him.
I n an o r d e r f i l e d December 2 2 , 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t Court
d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n , f i n d i n g t h a t he had n o t s a t i s f i e d
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 40-4-219, MCA, and t h e r e f o r e
c o u l d n o t modify t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e . The o r d e r a l s o p r o v i d e d
t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s s h o u l d b e a r t h e i r own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y
f e e s . N o t i c e of e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r was f i l e d on December 3 0 ,
1977. I t was n o t u n t i l f i v e months l a t e r t h a t a n o t i c e o f
a p p e a l was f i l e d .
Almost t h r e e months a f t e r t h e o r d e r d e n y i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n ,
t h e mother f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r
t o pay a r e a s o n a b l e amount f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s
i n c u r r e d by t h e mother i n d e f e n d i n g a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r ' s
m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e
m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d May 1 7 , 1978.
O May 26, 1978, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l ,
n
a p p e a l i n g n o t o n l y from t h e o r d e r r e l a t i n g t o a t t o r n e y f e e s ,
b u t a l s o from t h e December 1977 o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s p e t i t i o n
f o r modification of custody.
Clearly, we cannot determine t h e appeal i n r e l a t i o n t o
m o d i f i c a t i o n of c u s t o d y ; b u t j u s t a s c l e a r l y , w e must r e v e r s e
t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n i t s d e c i s i o n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and
c o s t s , f o r t h e t i m e p e r i o d had l o n g e x p i r e d .
Rule 5 , Mont.R.App.Civ.P., p r o v i d e s t h a t a p p e a l from an
o r d e r must be t a k e n w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s of i t s e n t r y e x c e p t
t h a t i n c a s e s where s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e of e n t r y i s r e q u i r e d , t h e
t i m e f o r a p p e a l s h a l l be t h i r t y d a y s from t h e s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e
o f e n t r y o f judgment. Here, s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y o f
t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r was made on December 3 0 , 1977.
The f a t h e r f i l e d h i s a p p e a l o f t h i s o r d e r on May 2 6 , 1978, and
t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e t h i r t y day t i m e l i m i t d e p r i v e d t h i s Court
of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s appeal. The m o t h e r ' s l a t e r
p e t i t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s , under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e ,
d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e t h i r t y day l i m i t a t i o n f o r f i l i n g an
appeal.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s December 22, 1977 o r d e r d e n y i n g
t h e f a t h e r ' s modification p e t i t i o n provided i n p a r t t h a t both
p a r t i e s w e r e t o b e a r t h e i r own a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . But
a l m o s t t h r e e months l a t e r , on March 1 7 , 1978, t h e mother
p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e
f a t h e r t o pay a r e a s o n a b l e amount f o r t h e c o s t s and a t t o r n e y
f e e s i n c u r r e d by h e r i n d e f e n s e o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n
f i l e d by t h e f a t h e r . On May 1 7 , 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f i l e d an o r d e r based on s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, which r e q u i r e d
t h e f a t h e r t o pay t h e sums o f $1,491 t o t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y
and $1,000 d i r e c t l y t o t h e mother. Clearly, the District
Court had no s u c h a u t h o r i t y .
Rule 5 9 ( g ) , M0nt.R.Civ.P. provides: "A motion t o a l t e r
o r amend t h e judgment s h a l l be s e r v e d n o t l a t e r t h a n 10 d a y s
a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of judgment. . ."
T h i s r u l e a p p l i e s t o p e t i t i o n s f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s
f i l e d a f t e r e n t r y of judgment. S t a c y v. W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 7 0 ) ,
50 F.R.D. 52 ( c o n s t r u i n g Rule 59 ( e ) , F e d . R . ~ i v . P . , which i s
i d e n t i c a l i n c o n t e n t t o Rule 5 9 ( g ) , M0nt.R.Civ.P.); Lichtenstein
v. L i c h t e n s t e i n ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 55 F.R.D. 535 ( c o n s t r u i n g Rule
59 ( e ) , Fed. R.Civ.P. ) ; see also M & R C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. v.
Shea (19791, Mont . , 589 P.2d 138, 36 St.Rep.
37 I ( t h i s Court a p p l i e d Rule 59 ( g ) t o a motion t o s t r i k e
judgment f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s ) . Proper a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e
r u l e s c l e a r l y p r o h i b i t e d g r a n t i n g of t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f
t o t h e mother i n t h i s c a s e .
Notice of e n t r y of t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r r e q u i r i n g
b o t h p a r t i e s t o b e a r t h e i r own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s was
s e r v e d on t h e f a t h e r on December 3 0 , 1977. Having f a i l e d t o
f i l e h e r p e t i t i o n f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s w i t h i n t e n
d a y s of s e r v i c e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n
t o g i v e t h e mother t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f .
Though t h e r e l i e f g r a n t e d i n t h e f a c e of t h e e x i s t i n g
procedural r u l e s i s highly unusual, t h e t r i a l court d i d not
b o t h e r t o e x p l a i n t h e b a s i s of i t s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t t h e
r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f t o t h e mother. I t i s highly unlikely t h a t
an a p p e a l would have r e s u l t e d had t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y
a p p l i e d t h e r u l e s of c i v i l procedure t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , f i l e d t h r e e months a f t e r e n t r y
of t h e f i n a l o r d e r .
By n o t a p p e a l i n g t h e December 2 2 , 1977 o r d e r denying
t h e p e t i t i o n t o modify c u s t o d y , t h e f a t h e r had o b v i o u s l y
d e c i d e d t o f o r e g o an a p p e a l . But t h r e e months l a t e r , h e
was f a c e d w i t h t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o award h e r a t t o r n e y
f e e s and c o s t s i n c u r r e d a s a r e s u l t of d e f e n d i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s
p e t i t i o n t o modify c u s t o d y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t had u n e q u i v o c a l l y
r u l e d t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s were t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r n e y f e e s and
costs. The mother c o u l d have p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
within t h e procedural time l i m i t s , t o reconsider t h a t r u l i n g ,
o r c o u l d have a p p e a l e d t h a t r u l i n g w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s , b u t
did neither. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g g r a n t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s
p e t i t i o n compelled t h e f a t h e r t o a p p e a l u n l e s s he c o u l d p e r s u a d e
t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o change i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s
and c o s t s t o t h e mother.
W e r e c o g n i z e , of c o u r s e , t h e r i g h t of t h e f a t h e r under
t h e r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e t o a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
o r d e r w i t h o u t f i r s t p e t i t i o n i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t
the alleged error. But t h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t w e encourage
such d i r e c t a p p e a l s . The f a t h e r c o u l d have f i l e d a motion
r e q u e s t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t i t s o r d e r . I f it
had been done, and i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d c o r r e c t i t s e r r o r ,
i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e mother would have a p p e a l e d . Moreover,
i f s h e had a p p e a l e d , b e i n g t h a t h e r p o s i t i o n o b v i o u s l y had
no f o u n d a t i o n i n t h e law, it c o u l d w e l l have been c l a s s i f i e d
by t h i s C o u r t a s f r i v o l o u s under Rule 32, Mont.R.App.Civ.P.,
with a p p r o p r i a t e s a n c t i o n s being t h e r e s u l t . Furthermore,
i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s motion t o c o r r e c t
such a p a t e n t e r r o r , n o t h i n g would have been l o s t . Conceivably,
the District Court would even have explained the basis for
its ruling granting the mother's motion.
But turning solely to the patently erroneous ruling
of the District Court, an appeal was in order. This being
so, the father undoubtedly thought he had nothing to lose
by also requesting this Court to review on the merits, the
original decision of the District Court denying his petition
to modify the custody decree.
A more careful and conscientious application of the
rules by the trial courts, and a more careful analysis by
the lawyers of the procedural options available to correct
errors of the trial courts, will undoubtedly benefit the
court system, and save much time and money for the parties
involved, an objective which lawyers should not lose sight of.
For the above reasons, the father's appeal from the
District Court order of December 22, 1977 denying custody
modification is dismissed. This Court has no jurisdiction
to hear this appeal. On the other hand, the District Court
order of May 17, 1977, granting attorney fees and costs to
the mother is reversed--the District Court had lost juris-
diction to enter the order.
,Fif
;he Justic
A