White v. White

No. 81-256
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981

MILDRED WHITE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs-
PNNUEL WHITE,
Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The
Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Kline & Niklas, Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: September 17, 1981
Decided : ~ 2 5 m

Filed: Nov 2 5 19#1
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.

The sole q u e s t i o n i n t h i s a p p e a l is w h e t h e r t h e e a r n i n g s
o f a j u d g m e n t d e b t o r f o r h i s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s a r e e x e m p t from

e x e c u t i o n on a j u d g m e n t f o r u n p a i d a l i m o n y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t

h e l d such e a r n i n g s exempt. We affirm.

On F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1 9 8 0 , a p p e l l a n t M i l d r e d W h i t e o b t a i n e d a
judgment f o r d e l i n q u e n t alimony payments a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t

Manuel W h i t e i n t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f S p o k a n e , W a s h i n g t o n . This
j u d g m e n t was s u e d upon i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t o f L e w i s and C l a r k
C

C o u n t y , Montana i n May, 1 9 8 0 , and r e d u c e d t o j u d g m e n t i n t h e sum

o f $39,502.65 i n t h e Montana C o u r t i n December, 1 9 8 0 .
F o l l o w i n g e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t , r e s p o n d e n t Manuel W h i t e f i l e d
a n a f f i d a v i t o f e x e m p t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 25-13-614, MCA,

c l a i m i n g t h a t h i s e a r n i n g s f o r h i s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s were

n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e u s e o f h i s f a m i l y s u p p o r t e d i n whole o r i n p a r t
b y h i s l a b o r and t h e r e f o r e were exempt from e x e c u t i o n . Attached
t o t h e a f f i d a v i t o f e x e m p t i o n was a s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g h i s n e t
m o n t h l y income was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 2 , 6 0 0 and a n i t e m i z a t i o n of h i s
monthly e x p e n s e s n e c e s s a r y to s u p p o r t h i s f a m i l y i n t h e t o t a l

amount o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,975 f o r a n e t monthly d e f i c i t of
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $375. No i s s u e was r a i s e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f a n y o f t h e items c l a i m e d a s n e c e s s a r y

f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s f a m i l y .
I n J a n u a r y , 1981, a p p e l l a n t Mildred White submitted a w r i t
o f e x e c u t i o n f o r i s s u a n c e by t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t of L e w i s and

C l a r k County. She f i l e d a s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f c l a i m i n g t h a t
M o n t a n a ' s e x e m p t i o n s t a t u t e h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n to a n e x e c u t i o n
b a s e d upon a j u d g m e n t f o r d e l i n q u e n t a l i m o n y p a y m e n t s and t h e r e -
f o r e a p p e l l a n t ' s claim of e x e m p t i o n o f h i s e a r n i n g s w a s i n v a l i d .
On May 1 8 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e c l e r k o f
c o u r t to deny a p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n " t h e r e

b e i n g no l e g a l c a u s e shown . . . why t h e e a r n i n g s of t h e defen-
d a n t [ a p p e l l a n t h e r e ] f o r h i s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s s h o u l d n o t be

exempt under s a i d s t a t u t e . " (Bracketed i d e n t i f i c a t i o n added.)

A p p e l l a n t M i l d r e d W h i t e h a s a p p e a l e d from t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t ' s o r d e r denying t h e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n .
Montana's exemption s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

" E a r n i n g s o f judgment d e b t o r . (1) The e a r n i n g s
o f t h e judgment d e b t o r f o r h i s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s
r e n d e r e d a t a n y t i m e w i t h i n 45 d a y s n e x t p r e -
c e d i n g t h e l e v y o f e x e c u t i o n or a t t a c h m e n t , when
i t a p p e a r s b y t h e d e b t o r ' s a f f i d a v i t or o t h e r w i s e
t h a t s u c h e a r n i n g s are n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e u s e o f
h i s f a m i l y s u p p o r t e d i n whole or i n p a r t by h i s
l a b o r , a r e exempt ...
" ( 2 ) The w o r d s ' h i s f a m i l y ' , as used i n t h i s
s e c t i o n , a r e t o be c o n s t r u e d w i t h t h e w o r d s
h e a d o f f a m i l y ' , as used i n 70-32-102".
S e c t i o n 25-13-614, MCA.
"Head o f f a m i l y " is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 70-32-102,

MCA, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t i n t h e following language:
"Head o f f a m i l y d e f i n e d .
-- The p h r a s e ' h e a d o f a
f a m i l y 1 a s used i n t h i s c h a p t e r i n c l u d e s w i t h i n
i t s meaning:
" ( 1 ) t h e husband and w i f e a c t i n g t o g e t h e r or
e i t h e r o n e o f them i f t h e y d o n o t j o i n i n t h e
particular transaction. I n any g i v e n t r a n s a c -
t i o n which r e q u i r e s a c t i o n by t h e head o f a
f a m i l y , t h e s p o u s e who u n d e r t a k e s t h e t r a n s a c -
t i o n s h a l l be deemed head o f t h e f a m i l y i n
r e g a r d to t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s a c t i o n .

" ( 3 ) e v e r y p e r s o n who h a s r e s i d i n g o n t h e p r e m i -
ses w i t h him or h e r and u n d e r h i s or h e r care
and maintenance e i t h e r :
" ( a ) h i s o r h e r minor c h i l d or t h e minor c h i l d
o f h i s o r h e r w i f e or husband o r f o r m e r w i f e or
husband . . ."
A p p e l l a n t M i l d r e d W h i t e c o n t e n d s t h a t Montana' s
e x e m p t i o n s t a t u t e h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n to a c l a i m f o r
d e l i n q u e n t alimony. She a r g u e s t h a t t h e b a s i s of a l i m o n y is
t h e n a t u r a l o b l i g a t i o n o f a husband to s u p p o r t h i s w i f e ; t h a t it
i s n o t a d e b t w i t h i n t h e meaning o f e x e m p t i o n s t a t u t e s ; t h a t it

d o e s n o t create a d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n husband
a n d w i f e ; and t h e r e f o r e it is beyond t h e p u r p o s e and s c o p e o f

e x e m p t i o n s t a t u t e s whose p u r p o s e is t o s a v e t h e d e b t o r a
means o f s u p p o r t i n g h i s f a m i l y . She p o i n t s o u t t h a t o t h e r

c o u r t s h a v e g e n e r a l l y so h e l d , c i t i n g Anno: E n f o r c e m e n t o f
claim f o r a l i m o n y e t c . a g a i n s t e x e m p t i o n s , 54 ALR2d 1 4 2 2 ;
B r u t o n v. T e a r l e ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 7 C a l . 2 d 4 8 , 59 P.2d 9 5 3 ; Yager v .

Yager (1936) 7 C a l . 2 d 213, 6 0 P.2d 422; R a n k i n s v. R a n k i n s

( 1 9 4 2 ) , 52 Cal.2d 2 3 1 , 1 2 6 P.2d 1 2 5 ; Ex p a r t e S m a l l b o n e
( 1 9 4 0 1 , 1 6 C a l . 2 d 5 3 2 , 1 0 6 P.2d 8 7 3 ; Henry v . Henry ( 1 9 6 0 ) ,
1 8 2 Cal.App.2d 707, 6 Cal.Rptr. 418; ~ i c k e lv. B i c k e l

She g o e s on t o a r g u e t h a t t h e m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s l i s t e d

b y r e s p o n d e n t as n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f h i s f a m i l y

d e s e r v e s c r u t i n y to d e t e r m i n e t h e i r n e c e s s i t y w i t h i n t h e
meaning of Montana's exemption s t a t u t e . Finally, she p o i n t s

o u t t h a t t h e r e s u l t o f u p h o l d i n g r e s p o n d e n t ' s claim o f
e x e m p t i o n is t o f a v o r s e c o n d and t h i r d w i v e s and c h i l d r e n a t
t h e expense of h e r p r i o r claim--an i n d e f e n s i b l e social

policy.
The i s s u e p o s e d i n t h i s case h a s n o t b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d
i n Montana. Both a p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t c o n c e d e t h i s .
A p p e l l a n t s e e k s to p e r s u a d e u s to h o l d i n h e r f a v o r by

r u l i n g s o f c o u r t s o f sister s t a t e s e i t h e r t h a t t h e i r exemp-

t i o n s t a t u t e s d o n o t e x p r e s s l y e n c o m p a s s claims or j u d g m e n t s
f o r d e l i n q u e n t a l i m o n y o r by j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or

c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e i r e x e m p t i o n s t a t u t e s to t h a t e f f e c t .
W e remain unpersuaded . W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t alimony

claims r e s t o n a d i f f e r e n t b a s i s t h a n o r d i n a r y d e b t s . The

U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s p o i n t e d o u t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e
i n t h i s language:
" P e r m a n e n t a l i m o n y i s r e g a r d e d r a t h e r as a p o r -
t i o n o f t h e husband I s e s t a t e t o which t h e w i f e
is e q u i t a b l y e n t i t l e d , than s t r i c t l y a d e b t ;
a l i m o n y from t i m e t o t i m e may be r e g a r d e d as a
p o r t i o n o f h i s c u r r e n t income or e a r n i n g s . "
Audubon v. S h u f e l d t ( 1 9 0 1 ) , 1 8 1 U.S. 5 7 5 , 5 7 8 ,
2 1 S e c t . 7 3 5 , 45 L.Ed 1 0 0 9 .
B e t h a t as it may, a claim f o r d e l i n q u e n t a l i m o n y
when r e d u c e d t o j u d g m e n t becomes merged i n t h e judgment and

loses its u n d e r l y i n g c h a r a c t e r . The j u d g m e n t c r e a t e s a d e b t
owed b y t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o t h e e x - w i f e . The j u d g m e n t
creates a d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n them t h e same

a s a n y o t h e r money j u d g m e n t b e t w e e n a p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t .
I n c o n s t r u i n g Montanat s exemption s t a t u t e , t h e

i n t e n t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e is t o be p u r s u e d i f p o s s i b l e .
S e c t i o n 1-2-102, MCA. The i n t e n t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e m u s t
f i r s t be d e t e r m i n e d from t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e w o r d s

u s e d , and i f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e c a n be so
d e t e r m i n e d , t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and a p p l y a n y
o t h e r means o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Haker v. S o u t h w e s t e r n

R a i l w a y Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 3 6 4 , 5 7 8 P.2d 7 2 4 ; Montana
A s s ' n o f U n d e r w r i t e r s v. S t a t e o f Montana ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont.

2 1 1 , 5 6 3 P.2d 577. Where t h e l a n g u a g e o f a s t a t u t e is
p l a i n , u n a m b i g u o u s , d i r e c t and c e r t a i n t h e r e is n o t h i n g l e f t

f o r t h e c o u r t to c o n s t r u e . Doull v. Wohlschlager ( 1 9 6 3 ) ,
1 4 1 Mont. 3 5 4 , 377 P.2d758; Nat'l E l e c . C o n t r a c t o r s A s s ' n v.

S t a t e Bd. o f E d u c a t i o n ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 1 3 7 Mont. 3 8 2 , 3 5 2 P.2d 258;
Vaughn & R a g s d a l e C o . v . S t . Bd. o f E q u a l i z a t i o n ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 1 0 9
Mont. 5 2 , 96 P.2d 420. The f u n c t i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n
c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e is s i m p l y to a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e w h a t
i s i n terms or i n s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n , n o t to i n s e r t

w h a t h a s b e e n o m i t t e d or o m i t what h a s b e e n i n s e r t e d .

S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA. I n s h o r t , i t is s i m p l y t h e d u t y of
t h e Supreme C o u r t t o c o n s t r u e t h e l a w a s it f i n d s i t .
Dunphy v. Anaconda C o . ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 7 6 , 438 P.2d 660
a n d cases c i t e d t h e r e i n .
Applying t h e f o r e g o i n g r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y cons t r u c -
t i o n , we hold t h a t Montana's exemption s t a t u t e does n o t d i f -

f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t k i n d s or t y p e s o f j u d g m e n t s .

The p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s a n e x e m p t i o n of
e a r n i n g s a g a i n s t t h e l e v y o f any e x e c u t i o n r e g a r d l e s s of t h e
n a t u r e o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g claim. T h i s C o u r t is n o t empowered

t o i n s e r t an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e exemption s t a t u t e c o n s i s t i n g
o f judgments f o r d e l i n q u e n t alimony payments. We cannot

i n s e r t w h a t h a s b e e n o m i t t e d from t h e s t a t u t e . W e must

c o n s t r u e t h e s t a t u t e as w e f i n d i t . I f the r e s u l t contra-

v e n e s e n l i g h t e n e d p u b l i c p o l i c y , it is f o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and
n o t t h e c o u r t s t o amend t h e s t a t u t e . I t is n o t t h e f u n c t i o n of

t h e c o u r t s t o improve l e g i s l a t i v e a c t s by j u d i c i a l amendment.
W e d o n o t r e a c h t h e claim o f a p p e l l a n t t h a t some o f

t h e i n d i v i d u a l e x p e n s e items i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s claim o f exemp-

t i o n may n o t be n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f h i s f a m i l y .

T h i s i s s u e w a s n o t r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t i n t h e District
Court. This Court w i l l not decide i s s u e s r a i s e d f o r t h e

f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . N o r t h e r n p l a i n s v. Board of N a t u r a l

R e s o u r c e s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 5 0 0 , 594 P.2d 297; K e a r n s v. M c I n t y r e
C o n s t . Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) r 1 7 3 Mont. 2 3 9 , 5 6 7 P.2d 433.

Af f i r m e d .

Chief ~ u s t i c e

Justices