No. 14532
IN THE SUPHEME COURT O THE STATE O MXTANA
F F
1979
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
IRENE L A . GREEN,
Petitioner and Respondent,
Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal f m : D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Homrable Edward Dussault, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Balyeat and Kamwrer, Missoula, Pbntana
John Balyeat argued, Missoula, Pbntana
For Respondent:
Tipp, Haven and Skjelset, Missoula, Pbntana
Thamas Frizzell argued, Missoula, Mxkana
Sutnnitted: March 15, 1979
=ided: ;".F ' 1
n -
:
%,
3.7
A
. ..-
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.
Dr. Norman Green a p p e a l s from t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and
c o n c l u s i o n s of law e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e
F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , M i s s o u l a County, t h e Honorable
Edward T. D u s s a u l t p r e s i d i n g , r e l a t i n g t o t h e d i v i s i o n of
t h e p a r t i e s ' a s s e t s i n conjunction with t h e i r d i s s o l u t i o n of
marriage. The c o u r t , s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , h e a r d t h e
m a t t e r on two n o n s u c c e s s i v e d a y s . On t h e f i r s t , F e b r u a r y 7 ,
1978, a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n w a s e n t e r e d p u r s u a n t t o s t i p u -
l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s ; t h e A p r i l 11, 1978, h e a r i n g w a s
c o n f i n e d t o q u e s t i o n s of t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . The
c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s were f i l e d J u n e 23, 1978.
A p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t s t w e l v e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w , many of
which a r e r e p e t i t i v e . D i s t i l l e d t o t h e i r essence, they
c e n t e r on t h e f o l l o w i n g :
1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e
assets o f t h e p a r t i e s a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 48-321, R.C.M.
1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-202 MCA, of Montana's Uniform Mar-
r i a g e and D i v o r c e Act?
2. Were t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s p r o p e r l y made and
based on s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e ?
3. Did t h e c o u r t err i n awarding I r e n e Green main-
t e n a n c e and a t t o r n e y f e e s ?
4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a d m i t t i n g r e s p o n -
dent's Exhibit No. 4, substantially prejudicing appellant
thereby?
The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d December 5 , 1969, a t which
t i m e r e s p o n d e n t I r e n e Green w a s a cook a t a t r u c k s t o p and
a p p e l l a n t w a s , a s now, a p h y s i c i a n . Both had been m a r r i e d
p r e v i o u s l y , and e a c h had minor c h i l d r e n . Each, t o o , had
a s s e t s : r e s p o n d e n t had t h e s e l l e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n a c o n t r a c t
f o r deed on r e a l e s t a t e n e a r Lolo, Montana; a p p e l l a n t had
$5000 i n a Keough r e t i r e m e n t p l a n , owned a n a i r p l a n e , and
owned a b u i l d i n g used a s a m e d i c a l c l i n i c i n Shaunavon,
Saskatchewan, Canada, t h e s u b s t a n t i a l l o a n s f o r which were
paid off during t h e marriage.
A t t h e t i m e of t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n , t h e District Court
found t h a t t h e p a r t i e s owned t h e f o l l o w i n g : t h e s e l l e r ' s
i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e Lolo p r o p e r t y , t h e a i r p l a n e ,
t h e c l i n i c , a house on t e n acres on M i l l e r Creek i n M i s s o u l a ,
and a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e R i v e r s i d e B a r i n Hamilton. I n addi-
t i o n , D r . Green had $17,500 i n t h e Keough r e t i r e m e n t p l a n .
The p a r t i e s a l s o had v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , which a p p e l -
l a n t acknowledges was d i v i d e d e v e n l y . I n addition, the
p a r t i e s had d e b t s and l i a b i l i t i e s t o t a l i n g some $127,000.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i v i d e d t h e p r o p e r t y as f o l l o w s : to
Mrs. Green, t h e s e l l e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed
o n t h e Lolo p r o p e r t y and t h e h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e Hamilton
b a r , where s h e works; t o D r . Green, e v e r y t h i n g else. It
appears t h a t each received property b e s t s u i t e d t o t h a t
individual.
Mrs. Green makes h e r l i v i n g from t h e b a r - - i t makes
s e n s e t h a t s h e r e c e i v e t h e p a r t i e s ' i n t e r e s t i n t h a t prop-
erty. She had a c q u i r e d t h e Lolo p r o p e r t y c o n t r a c t f o r deed
from h e r former husband i n l i e u o f monthly s u p p o r t payments
f o r h e r two c h i l d r e n by t h a t p r i o r m a r r i a g e - - i t makes s e n s e
t h a t she receive t h a t , also.
Dr. Green i s t h e o n l y one of t h e p a i r who h a s a p i l o t ' s
l i c e n s e ; hence, t h a t he should g e t t h e p l a n e i s reasonable.
H e i s a p h y s i c i a n , who came i n t o t h e m a r r i a g e w i t h a n i n -
t e r e s t i n t h e m e d i c a l c l i n i c ; i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t h a t h e keep
t h a t p r o p e r t y and t h e a t t e n d a n t s h a r e of t h e income from i t .
~ i k e w i s e ,i t i s e c o n o m i c a l l y s e n s i b l e t h a t h e keep h i s
Keough r e t i r e m e n t p l a n .
Mrs. Green moved o u t of t h e M i l l e r Creek house a t t h e
t i m e of s e p a r a t i o n . Dr. Green c o n t i n u e d t o l i v e i n t h e home
a f t e r the separation. I t a p p e a r s r e a s o n a b l e t h a t D r . Green
s h o u l d b e awarded a l l of t h e p r o c e e d s from t h e s a l e o f t h e
home. A t t h e t i m e of t h e s e p a r a t i o n , t h e home was w o r t h a t
l e a s t $82,000.
A p p e l l a n t had t o p r o v i d e $43,000 t o r e t i r e t h e d e b t
owing o n t h e h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e R i v e r s i d e B a r , t h e $4000 f o r
e i g h t months o f m a i n t e n a n c e and, p e r h a p s , a s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d
l a t e r , $1500 f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . T h a t he assume
c e r t a i n of t h e d e b t s d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n e q u i t a b l e . For
example, a s i z e a b l e l o a n had been t a k e n o u t i n M r s . G r e e n ' s
name t o pay D r . G r e e n ' s a r r e a r a g e s i n s u p p o r t owed h i s w i f e
and o f f s p r i n g from a p r i o r m a r r i a g e ; t h a t h e s h o u l d assume
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n e q u i t a b l e and
unreasonable. U n c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d i s t h e why and t h e
w h e r e f o r e of some of t h e l o a n s . W e cannot speculate about
them, b u t a b s e n t c o m p e l l i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s t o t h e c o n t r a r y , i t
d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n e q u i t a b l e t h a t D r . Green, t h e p a r t y e a r n -
i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $6000 p e r month, a s opposed t o M r s . Green,
who e a r n s w e l l u n d e r $1000 p e r month, i s t o d i s c h a r g e t h e
obligations.
The s i t u a t i o n i s n o t , a s a p p e l l a n t s u g g e s t s , one of
l e a v i n g him " w i t h some f u r n i t u r e and a n o l d c a r , " w h i l e t h e
w i f e i s " s i t t i n g on t h e s i d e l a u g h i n g . " Given t h e n a t u r e of
t h e p r o p e r t y t o b e d i s t r i b u t e d and w i t h due c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
t h e i t e m s e l a b o r a t e d i n s e c t i o n 48-321, R.C.M. 1947, now
s e c t i o n 40-4-202 MCA, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n made
by t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t i n d e e d was e q u i t a b l e .
t It i s well
settled that " [ t ] he a p p o r t i o n m e n t made by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d on r e v i e w u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been a
c l e a r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n a s m a n i f e s t e d by a s u b s t a n t i a l l y
i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l assets r e s u l t i n g i n
substantial injustice." I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
Mont. 587 P.2d 361, 364, 35 St.Rep. 1733, c i t i n g
i n t e r a l i a , I n re M a r r i a g e of B l a i r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. ,
583 P.2d 403, 405, 35 St.Rep. 1256, and Eschenburg v . Eschen-
b u r g ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 247, 557 P.2d 1 0 1 4 , 1016, 33 St.Rep.
1198.
I n t h e i n s t a n t case, no c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i s
m a n i f e s t ; t h e r e h a s been no s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i -
s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l assets r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e
t o e i t h e r party. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d a s t o t h e
d i v i s i o n of t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y .
C o n s i d e r i n g t h e second i s s u e , a f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e
t r a n s c r i p t of p r o c e e d i n g s , w e f i n d t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and
c o n c l u s i o n s are based on s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e . It
i s t r u e t h a t some of t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t are more p r o p e r l y
c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and v i c e v e r s a , b u t a m i s l a b e l i n g such a s
h a s o c c u r r e d h e r e w i l l n o t form t h e b a s i s f o r r e p u d i a t i n g
t h e determinations of t h e District Court. Appellant has
s u f f e r e d no s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e a s a r e s u l t of t h e m i s -
labeling. Such e r r o r i s h a r m l e s s and may n o t b e used t o
d e f e a t t h e judgment. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i l l n o t b e r e -
versed f o r harmless e r r o r , e.g., Halko v . Anderson ( 1 9 3 9 ) ,
108 Mont. 588, 593, 93 P.2d 956, 959, and t h e c a u s e w i l l n o t
be remanded i n t h o s e cases w h e r e i n t h e e v e n t u a l r e s u l t must
b e t h e same. Green v . Green ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont. -, 579 P. 2d
1235, 1237, 35 S t - R e p . 800.
The t h i r d i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e award o f maintenance and
attorney fees t o M r s . Green. A c o u r t may g r a n t m a i n t e n a n c e
f o r e i t h e r spouse only i f i t f i n d s t h a t t h e spouse seeking
m a i n t e n a n c e meets two c o n d i t i o n s : (1) h e o r s h e l a c k s
s u f f i c i e n t property t o provide f o r h i s o r her reasonable
needs; and, (2) i s unable t o support himself o r h e r s e l f
t h r o u g h a p p r o p r i a t e employment - i s t h e c u s t o d i a n o f a
or
c h i l d whose c o n d i t i o n o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s make i t a p p r o p r i a t e
t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t n o t be r e q u i r e d t o s e e k employment
o u t s i d e t h e home. S e c t i o n 48-322 (1)( a ) , ( b ) , R.C.M. 1947,
now s e c t i o n 40-4-203 (1)( a ) , ( b ) MCA. F u r t h e r m o r e , i n making
t h e award, t h e c o u r t i s p r o h i b i t e d from c o n s i d e r i n g any
m a r i t a l misconduct o f t h e p a r t i e s , b u t must c o n s i d e r t h e
following:
" t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g main-
tenance, including m a r i t a l property apportioned t o
him, and h i s a b i l i t y t o meet h i s n e e d s i n d e p e n d e n t l y ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e e x t e n t t o which a p r o v i s i o n f o r s u p p o r t
o f a c h i l d l i v i n g w i t h t h e p a r t y i n c l u d e s a sum
f o r t h a t p a r t y a s custodian;
" t h e time necessary t o a c q u i r e s u f f i c i e n t education
o r t r a i n i n g t o e n a b l e t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g maintenance
t o f i n d a p p r o p r i a t e employment;
" t h e standard of l i v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d during t h e m a r -
riage;
" t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e marriage;
" t h e a g e , and t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n
of t h e s p o u s e s e e k i n g maintenance; and
" t h e a b i l i t y of t h e s p o u s e from whom m a i n t e n a n c e i s
s o u g h t t o m e e t h i s n e e d s w h i l e m e e t i n g t h o s e of t h e
s p o u s e s e e k i n g maintenance. " S e c t i o n 48-322 ( 2 ) ( a )-
(f) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-203 ( 2 ) ( a )- ( f ) MCA.
I n t h i s case, t h e D i s t r i c t Court t w i c e r e f e r s t o t h e
m a i n t e n a n c e award:
"18. The Respondent s h o u l d pay and t h e P e t i t i o n e r
i s awarded t h e sum of $500.00 p e r month f o r t h e
c a r e and s u p p o r t o f P e t i t i o n e r b e g i n n i n g J u n e 1,
1977, and t h r o u g h t h e month of J a n u a r y 1978 f o r
a t o t a l sum of $4,000.00."
" 3 . T h a t P e t i t i o n e r w i t h no f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n p a s t
h i g h s c h o o l , h a v i n g no work e x p e r i e n c e d u r i n g t h e
m a r r i a g e o f n o t e , s u f f e r i n g from a p r o g r e s s i v e
d i s a b l i n g d i s e a s e of u l c e r a t i v e c o l i t u s a s d i a g n o s e d
by Respondent, and u n a b l e t o h o l d g a i n f u l employment
g r e a t e r t h a n s e v e r a l s h i f t s p e r week a s a b a r t e n d e r
and s h a l l e x p e r i e n c e a low and r e d u c i n g r a t e of p e r -
s o n a l income h e r e a f t e r . "
Based on t h e l a t t e r , a f i n d i n g m i s l a b e l e d a c o n c l u s i o n ,
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had ample f o u n d a t i o n f o r making t h e s h o r t
t e r m maintenance award and d i d s o i n s u f f i c i e n t compliance
w i t h s t a t u t o r y mandate.
S e c t i o n 48-327, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-110 MCA,
states:
"The c o u r t from t i m e t o t i m e a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e
f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s o f b o t h p a r t i e s may o r d e r a p a r t y
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 t o t h e o t h e r
p a r t y o f m a i n t a i n i n g o r d e f e n d i n g any p r o c e e d i n g un-
d e r t h i s a c t and f o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n c l u d i n g sums
f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r
t o t h e commencement of t h e p r o c e e d i n g o r a f t e r e n t r y
of judgment. The c o u r t may o r d e r t h a t t h e amount b e
p a i d d i r e c t l y t o t h e a t t o r n e y , who may e n f o r c e t h e
o r d e r i n h i s name."
A s t o t h e award o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
found:
"19. T h a t Respondent s h o u l d pay toward t h e P e t i -
t i o n e r ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s and t h e P e t i t i o n e r i s h e r e -
by awarded t h e sum o f $1,500.00 a s f o r and towards
t h e P e t i t i o n e r ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n t h i s
matter."
"11. The Respondent s h o u l d b e o r d e r e d and i s h e r e b y
r e q u i r e d t o pay t h e sum of $1,500.00 towards t h e
P e t i t i o n e r ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s of s u i t i n c u r r e d . "
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s " a
t r a i n e d , l i c e n s e d and p r a c t i c i n g m e d i c a l d o c t o r , a g e 53,
w i t h o u t any c l a i m e d p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l impairment, w i t h
e a r n i n g s of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $6,000.00 p e r month" who " s h a l l
c o n t i n u e t o have a h i g h r a t e of p e r s o n a l income." The
record supports these determinations. In contrast, the
w i f e , who had no f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n beyond h i g h s c h o o l and no
s i g n i f i c a n t employment e x p e r i e n c e d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s '
m a r r i a g e , s u f f e r s from u l c e r a t i v e c o l i t i s and i s u n a b l e t o
h o l d g a i n f u l employment o t h e r t h a n working s e v e r a l s h i f t s a s
a bartender. H e r income nowhere a p p r o a c h e s t h a t of a p p e l -
l a n t and, a s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found, i t w i l l g r a d u a l l y
d i m i n i s h a s s h e a g e s and t h e d i s e a s e p r o g r e s s e s . Clearly
t h e c o u r t considered t h e f i n a n c i a l resources of both p a r t i e s .
Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n award of $1500 toward payment
o f h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s d o e s n o t a p p e a r s o i n e q u i t a b l e
a s t o mandate r e v e r s a l .
W e have h e l d , however, t h a t e v i d e n c e must be i n t r o d u c e d
t o s u p p o r t a n award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . As stated i n State
Highway Comm'n v . Marsh ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont. ,
- 575 P.2d 38,
43, 35 St.Rep. 105, 1 1 0 , ". . . An award of a t t o r n e y f e e s
must b e based on a h e a r i n g a l l o w i n g f o r o r a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x h i b i t s , and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s -
examine i n which t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s
claimed i s demonstrated. . ." A s i n M a r r i a g e o f Barron
(1978) Mont. , 580 P.2d 936, 938, 35 St.Rep. 891,
894 :
"We f i n d a l a c k of e v i d e n c e t h a t would s a t i s f y
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f C r n c e v i c h v . Georgetown Rec.
Corp. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 113, 541 P.2d 56, and
F i r s t S e c u r i t y Bank of Bozeman v . Tholkes ( 1 9 7 6 ) ,
169 Mont. 422, 547 P.2d 1328, t o s u p p o r t t h e
award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e judgment."
A s i n B a r r o n and H o l l i n g e r v . McMichael (1978), Mont.
, 580 P.2d 927, 35, St.Rep. 856, t h e c a u s e must b e
remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on
t h e q u e s t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s .
F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t complains o f e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n
o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t No. 4 , used t o show t h e income of
t h e R i v e r s i d e B a r where r e s p o n d e n t w a s working. Appellant
o b j e c t e d t o i t s a d m i s s i o n on t h e grounds (1) t h a t M r s . Green
c o u l d t e s t i f y t o t h e matters c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n ; ( 2 ) t h a t h e
had no o p p o r t u n i t y t o examine t h e bookkeeper who p r e p a r e d
i t ; ( 3 ) t h a t i t had no r e l a t i o n t o t h e c a s e ; and ( 4 ) t h a t i t
was v e r y m i s l e a d i n g .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e e x h i b i t
was b e i n g a d m i t t e d o n l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e of showing t h e
w i f e ' s n e t income. Immediately p r i o r t o i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n ,
I r e n e Green t e s t i f i e d t w i c e , w i t h o u t any o b j e c t i o n , a s t o
t h e income s h e r e c e i v e d from t h e b a r d u r i n g a n eight-month
p e r i o d i n 1977. Thus, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was b e f o r e t h e c o u r t
f o r i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n even b e f o r e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e
exhibit.
W need n o t d e c i d e whether t h e r e was e r r o r i n t h e
e
a d m i s s i o n of t h i s e x h i b i t , f o r even were t h e r e e r r o r , i t w a s
not prejudicial t o appellant, affecting h i s substantial
r i g h t s s o a s t o b e made t h e b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l . Rule 6 1 ,
M.R.Civ.P. Harmless e r r o r w i l l n o t b e made t h e b a s i s f o r
r e v e r s a l , e.g., Halko v . Anderson, 108 Mont. a t 593, 9 3 P.2d
a t 959. F o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o b e r e v e r s e d f o r improp-
e r l y a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e , s u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c e t o t h e com-
p l a i n i n g p a r t y must b e shown. Rule 103, Mont.R.Evid.,
states t h a t " [ e l r r o r may n o t be p r e d i c a t e d upon a r u l i n g
which a d m i t s o r e x c l u d e s e v i d e n c e u n l e s s a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t
of t h e p a r t y i s a f f e c t e d . . ." A p p e l l a n t h a s made no show-
i n g t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t h a s been a f f e c t e d t o h i s d e t r i -
ment s o a s t o w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l .
The judgment i s a f f i r m e d , e x c e p t a s n o t e d above r e g a r d -
i n g remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g
on t h e q u e s t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s .
We concur:
~ ~
Chief Justice ! b q q
w
-.\'
\
&$
\ .
- . m
y
,
-
& ---
I
,' Justices i'
: