No. 14935
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
LORETTA WILSON,
Petitioner and Respondent,
VS.
KENT EUGENE WILSON,
Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Larry W. Moran argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Kommers, Lineberger and
Johnstone, Bozeman, Montana
Gene I. Brown argued, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: January 18, 1980
Decided : k t 3 6-
ax?
Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
his i s a n a p p e a l by Kent Eugene Wilson from a judgment
of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n
and f o r G a l l a t i n County, t h e Honorable W. W. Lessley presiding,
which g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t L o r e t t a Wilson f o r
a d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e , c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e
p a r t i e s , s u p p o r t of s a i d minor c h i l d , and a d i v i s i o n of
property .
The p a r t i e s m e t i n s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a i n 1962 a t which
t i m e appellant w a s a d e n t i s t serving a s a captain i n the
military. When r e s p o n d e n t became p r e g n a n t , t h e p a r t i e s
d e c i d e d t o o b t a i n a Mexican m a r r i a g e on t h e a d v i c e o f a p p e l -
lant' s attorney. Arrangements w e r e made by s a i d a t t o r n e y
and on O c t o b e r 3 , 1962, t h e p a r t i e s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a mar-
r i a g e ceremony a t a n a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e i n T i j u a n a , Mexico.
N e i t h e r p a r t y h a s any documentation o f t h i s m a r r i a g e , and
a t t o r n e y s a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f a p p e l l a n t were l a t e r u n a b l e t o
f i n d any r e c o r d of t h e m a r r i a g e i n Mexico. Respondent w a s
a l s o u n s u c c e s s f u l i n a s u b s e q u e n t a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n documentation
of t h e m a r r i a g e i n Mexico. A f t e r t h e Mexican ceremony, t h e
p a r t i e s r e t u r n e d t o s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a b u t t h e y never
cohabitated. A p p e l l a n t r e t u r n e d t o t h e F o r t MacArthur
d e n t a l b a s e where h e w a s s t a t i o n e d i n San P e d r o , w h i l e
r e s p o n d e n t r e t u r n e d t o l i v e i n Long Beach. Appellant d i d
n o t pay r e s p o n d e n t ' s r e n t o r food e x p e n s e s o r o t h e r w i s e
s u p p o r t h e r , nor d i d s h e e v e r r e c e i v e a m i l i t a r y a l l o t m e n t
a s a d e p e n d a n t spouse. Respondent was working a t t h i s t i m e .
There remains a d i s p u t e a s t o whether t h e p a r t i e s e v e r
considered themselves married. N e v e r t h e l e s s , a p p e l l a n t took
r e s p o n d e n t t o F o r t MacAurthur where h e r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t s h e
w a s h i s w i f e and o b t a i n e d a m i l i t a r y I . D . and m e d i c a l p r i v -
i l e g e s f o r her. I n December o f 1962, two months a f t e r t h e
t r i p t o Mexico, a p p e l l a n t r e s i g n e d h i s m i l i t a r y commission
and l e f t t h e S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a . H e had t o l d r e s p o n d e n t
t h a t h e was g o i n g o n a h u n t i n g t r i p f o r a c o u p l e o f weeks.
Subsequently, respondent l o c a t e d a p p e l l a n t i n Indiana.
The p a r t i e s ' c h i l d was b o r n o n A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 6 3 , and o n J u l y
7, 1964, r e s p o n d e n t s o u g h t and o b t a i n e d a p a t e r n i t y d e c r e e
a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t i n t h e E l k h a r t (Indiana) C i c u i t Court.
The d e c r e e s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n " o u t o f wedlock"
and i t o r d e r e d a p p e l l a n t t o pay $65.33 p e r month i n c h i l d
support. A p p e l l a h t h a s made t h e s e payments s i n c e t h e d a t e
of t h e decree.
I n contemplation of h i s marriage t o h i s p r e s e n t w i f e
and b e c a u s e h e w a s u n s u r e o f h i s m a r i t a l s t a t u s , a p p e l l a n t
i n i t i a t e d p r o c e e d i n g s i n 1966 f o r a n a n n u l m e n t o r i n t h e
a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a d e c r e e o f d i v o r c e from r e s p o n d e n t . This
s u i t was f i l e d i n t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f L i n c o l n County i n
t h e S t a t e o f Washington, where a p p e l l a n t r e s i d e d . These
p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e d r o p p e d when r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a c r o s s
complaint. Appellant t e s t i f i e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t
he d r o p p e d t h e s u i t b e c a u s e h e had been a d v i s e d by h i s
a t t o r n e y t h a t t h e r e was no m a r r i a g e and t h e r e f o r e no need t o
o b t a i n a n annulment o r d i v o r c e .
N o t h i n g f u r t h e r was done by e i t h e r p a r t y u n t i l t h e
p r e s e n t s u i t was f i l e d by r e s p o n d e n t i n t h e G a l l a t i n County
D i s t r i c t C o u r t o n November 30, 1978. A p p e l l a n t has been a
r e s i d e n t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana s i n c e 1971. H e i s an
o r t h o d o n t i s t a n d h i s a n n u a l income f o r 1978 was a p p r o x i m a t e l y
$60,000. I n a d d i t i o n h e i s p u r c h a s i n g a r e s i d e n c e and a n
o f f i c e b u i l d i n g and h a s o t h e r a s s e t s . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he
i s c a p a b l e o f p a y i n g t h e s u p p o r t payments o r d e r e d by t h e
District Court.
Respondent i s employed i n Long Beach, C a l i f o r n i a a s a
darkroom t e c h n i c i a n w i t h a take-home pay o f $238 e v e r y two
weeks. She i s a d o m i c i l i a r y and a r e s i d e n t o f C a l i f o r n i a .
Other than h e r c o u r t appearance i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , she has
n e v e r been i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana. The same i s t r u e o f t h e
minor c h i l d , Kentanne Mary Wilson, who i s now s i x t e e n y e a r s
old. P r i o r t o t h e t r i a l o f t h i s c a s e s h e had n e v e r s e e n h e r
natural father. The minor c h i l d was b o r n w i t h a c o n g e n i t a l
h i p problem and h a s numerous o t h e r m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s . Her
m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s have been c o n s i d e r a b l e .
A p p e l l a n t , Kent Eugene W i l s o n , s p e c i a l l y a p p e a r e d c h a l -
lenging the D i s t r i c t Court's jurisdiction. The c h a l l e n g e
was o v e r r u l e d , and t h e case w a s h e a r d on i t s m e r i t s by t h e
D i s t r i c t J u d g e o n May 21, 1979. On J u n e 1 8 , 1979 f i n d i n g s
o f f a c t w e r e e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n i n g (1) t h a t t h e
p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d i n T i j u a n a , Mexico on O c t o b e r 3, 1962;
( 2 ) t h a t a p p e l l a n t d e s e r t e d r e s p o n d e n t i n December 1962; (3)
t h a t t h e marriage i s i r r e t r i e v a b l y broken; ( 4 ) t h a t respondent
i s a f i t and p r o p e r p e r s o n t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e minor
child; ( 5 ) t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s r e f u s e d t o s u p p o r t t h e minor
c h i l d e x c e p t f o r t h e payment o f t h e sum o f $65.33 p e r month
a s o r d e r e d by t h e E l k h a r t ( I n d i a n a ) C i r c u i t C o u r t o r d e r
d a t e d J u l y 7, 1964; ( 6 ) t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s a c c u m u l a t e d
p r o p e r t y and i s c a p a b l e o f p a y i n g t h e sum o f $200 p e r month
f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e minor c h i l d u n t i l s h e r e a c h e s t h e a g e
o f m a j o r i t y ; and ( 7 ) t h a t r e s p o n d e n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a n award
o f a p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y a c c u m u l a t e d by a p p e l l a n t d e s p i t e
t h e f a c t t h a t s h e d i d n o t a s s i s t i n t h e a c c ~ I n u l a t i o no f
property. On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d
h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and e n t e r e d judgment ( a )
t h a t t h e marriage of t h e p a r t i e s is dissolved; (b) t h a t
r e s p o n d e n t be g r a n t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e minor c h i l d and t h a t
a p p e l l a n t pay $200 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t t o g e t h e r w i t h
p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e m e d i c a l and d e n t a l e x p e n s e s ; (c) t h a t
r e s p o n d e n t b e awarded t h e sum o f $15,000, p l u s r e a s o n a b l e
attorneys fees. I t i s from t h i s judgment t h a t t h e a p p e a l i s
taken.
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t :
1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r
L o r e t t a W i l s o n ' s p e t i t i o n and e n t e r judgment (a) granting a
d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e and ( b ) m o d i f y i n g t h e I n d i a n a s u p p o r t
decree?
2. Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f a v a l i d
m a r r i a g e between t h e p a r t i e s and t h e p r o p e r t y award t o re-
spondent?
The f i r s t i s s u e t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r L o r e t t a W i l s o n ' s
p e t i t i o n and e n t e r judgment g r a n t i n g a d i s s o l u t i o n o f mar-
riage.
The I n d i a n a p a t e r n i t y s u i t e s t a b l i s h e d a p p e l l a n t a s t h e
n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s c h i l d and i t d e c r e e d s u p p o r t .
A l t h o u g h t h e d e c r e e s t a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n " o u t o f
wedlock", t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e Mexican m a r r i a g e w a s n o t l i t i g a t e d
i n t h e I n d i a n a p a t e r n i t y s u i t , and i t i s n o t res j u d i c a t a on
t h e question of t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s . I t i s n o t
a question of c o l l a t e r a l estoppel, since the marital relation-
s h i p of t h e p a r t i e s w a s n o t an e s s e n t i a l o r m a t e r i a l f a c t i n
t h e p a t e r n i t y s u i t , n o r was t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e p a r t i e s
determined i n t h a t a c t i o n . Western Mont. P r o d . Assn. v .
~ y d r o p o n i c s ,I n c . ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 1 5 7 , 410 P.2d 937. The
m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e p a r t i e s was i m m a t e r i a l t o t h e p a t e r n i t y
s u i t , b e c a u s e t h e same r e l i e f , i - e . , c h i l d s u p p o r t , would
have been d e c r e e d r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r m a r i t a l s t a t u s . Ap-
p e l l a n t ' s duty t o support existed irrespective of h i s marital
s t a t u s , and h i s m a r i t a l s t a u s would n o t have been a d e f e n s e .
The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e
p a r t i e s i s n o t r e l e v a n t o r m a t e r i a l t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of
t h e i s s u e s i n t h e p a t e r n i t y s u i t , where t h e s o l e i s s u e i s
p a t e r n i t y and t h e c o n c o m i t a n t o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t . State
v . P a t t o n ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 1 0 2 Mont. 51, 55 P.2d 1290, 1293, 104 ALR
76 ( d e c i d e d u n d e r f o r m e r s t a t u t e ; f o r p r e s e n t s t a t u t o r y
p r o v i s i o n s , see Montana Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t , § 40-6-101,
MCA, e t seq.). " I n bastardy proceedings, t h e only i s s u e i s
whether o r n o t t h e accused i s t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . . ."
Annot. 104 ALR 84.
I t may b e t r u e t h a t t h e I n d i a n a C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t
t h e c h i l d was b o r n " o u t o f wedlock" encompasses a f i n d i n g
t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e n e v e r m a r r i e d , s i n c e Montana c a s e s
recognize t h a t " a decree of t h e c o u r t s t a n d s a s an a b s o l u t e
f i n a l i t y ' n o t merely a s t o t h e conclusions expressed, b u t a s
t o everything d i r e c t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y involved i n reaching
them. '" Link v . S t a t e e x r e l . Department o f F i s h and G a m e
(1979) ,
- Mont. - 591 P.2d 214, 219, 36 S t . R e p . 355, 361,
q u o t i n g M i s s o u l a L i g h t & Water Co. v . Hughes ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 106
Mont. 355, 366, 77 P.2d 1041, 1047. The e n t i r e q u e s t i o n o f
w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d , however, had n o t h i n g
t o do w i t h t h e i s s u e s i n t h e I n d i a n a p a t e r n i t y s u i t . Therefore,
d e s p i t e t h a t c o u r t ' s pronouncement t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n
" o u t o f wedlock", t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e p a r t i e s was n o t
" n e c e s s a r i l y l i t i g a t e d and d e t e r m i n e d " i n t h e p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n .
Hence r e s p o n d e n t i s n o t c o l l a t e r a l l y e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g
h e r m a r r i a g e t o a p p e l l a n t , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had j u r i s -
d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n h e r p e t i t i o n and g r a n t a d i s s o l u t i o n o f
marriage.
The f a c t t h a t t h e 1964 I n d i a n a p a t e r n i t y d e c r e e i s
l o n g s t a n d i n g a n d h a s n o t been a p p e a l e d d o e s n o t a l t e r t h i s
conclusion. The r u l e i s t h a t " a judgment n o t a p p e a l e d from
i s c o n c l u s i v e between t h e p a r t i e s a s t o a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d by
p l e a d i n g s a c t u a l l y l i t i g a t e d and a d j u d g e d a s shown on t h e
f a c e o f t h e judgment and r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r m i n e d - -d e r t o
i n or -
-- e
reach t h c o n c l u s i o n announced." L i n k , s u p r a , 591 P.2d a t
219 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; Simon v . Simon ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 1 9 3 ,
461 P.2d 851, 852-853; B u t l e r v . Brownlee ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 152 Mont.
453, 451 P.2d 836, 838; D o u l l v . W o h l s c h l a g e r ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 1
Mont. 354, 377 P.2d 758, 764; M i s s o u l a L i g h t & Water Co. v .
Hughes ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 106 Mont. 355, 77 P.2d 1 0 4 1 , 1047. The
q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d was n o t
" a c t u a l l y l i t i g a t e d and a d j u d g e d .. . and r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r -
mined i n o r d e r t o r e a c h t h e c o n c l u s i o n announced" i n t h e
Indiana p a t e r n i t y s u i t .
With t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n
of t h e marriage resolved i n favor of t h e D i s t r i c t Court,
t h e r e i s l i t t l e else t o q u a r r e l a b o u t . Jurisdiction t o hear
t h e d i v o r c e g i v e s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l t h e rest of t h e
p r o b l e m s o f c u s t o d y , s u p p o r t and d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y .
S e c t i o n s 40-4-202, 40-4-204, 40-4-208, MCA (1979).
Both p a r t i e s have a d m i t t e d t o what t h e y b e l i e v e d t o b e
a c e r e m o n i a l m a r r i a g e i n Mexico. The m a r r i a g e was a r r a n g e d
by a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y a n d e a c h p a r t y h a s a c t e d a t l e a s t
o n c e as t h o u g h t h e m a r r i a g e w e r e v a l i d . The r e s p o n d e n t
f i l e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e and a l l e g e d a l e g a l
marriage. he appellant failed to challenge this pleading.
If he so desired, he should have pleaded his contentions on
the status of the marriage by an affirmative pleading in
defense. See Rule 8(c), M.R.Civ.P. The respondant testified
that she participated in a regular marriage ceremony at an
attorney's office in Tijuana, Mexico.
The second issue involved in this appeal is whether or
not there is substantial evidence to support the District
Court's finding of a valid marriage between the parties and
its,property award to respondent. Appellant has not con-
tested the reasonableness of the $200 per month award for
child support. The evidence presented at the trial of this
case has been discussed and will not be repeated here.
The defendant-appellant had the burden to overcome the
allegation of a legal marriage and failed to do so.
This leaves the property awarded to the respondent at
issue. Appellant first challenges the jurisdiction of the
court to do anything, then criticizes the manner in which
the award was made. His criticism is purportedly based on
the lack of evidence to support any award since the parties
had never lived together, the husband had never contributed
to the support of the wife, and the wife had never aided in
the building of the marital estate. This may all be true,
however, the District Court's jurisdiction is very broad in
this area and it is evident the court wanted to award something.
The percentage division was not disproportionate under all
the circumstances. The court in its findings seemed to be
aware of the resources of the appellant and the problems
that exist and made a nominal award.
There being sufficient credible evidence to support the
District Court's decision, the judgment is affirmed.
/
/ , /
Justice
f/ Ya5.,/
/
W e concur.
TA4pfc e %&
Chief J u s t i
- > t
1
5- /+
Justices