Jensen v. Jensen

No. 80-353
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981

SHIRLEY RAE JENSEN,

Petitioner and Respondent,
VS.

GORDON STEVEN JENSEN,
Respondent and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula.
Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Sadler Law Offices, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:

Balyeat, Kammerer and Rodli, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on briefs: February 25, 1981
Decided: June 10, 1981

Filed: JUN 10 198

v --
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

A p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t , Gordon S t e v e n J e n s e n , h e r e i n -

a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e husband, a p p e a l s from t h e judgment

and o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of 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 , Missoula County, t h e Honorable James B . Wheelis,

p r e s i d i n g , e n t e r e d a f t e r a h e a r i n g upon r e s p o n d e n t S h i r l e y

Rae J e n s e n ' s ( w i f e ' s ) p e t i t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c e n f o r c e m e n t and

m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e i r m a r r i a g e .

The c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e husband t o pay $1,035.74 i n back

c h i l d s u p p o r t p u r s u a n t t o t h e p a r t i e s ' amended s e p a r a t i o n

agreement, and t h e n m o d i f i e d t h e agreement by i n c r e a s i n g

f u t u r e monthly c h i l d s u p p o r t payments. Finally, the court

awarded t h e w i f e r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s , l a t e r d e t e r m i n e d

t o be $1,657.16. W a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e lower c o u r t .
e

The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d :

1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e p r o v i -

s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n agreement?

2. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n modifying t h e p r e v i o u s d i v o r c e

d e c r e e s o a s t o i n c r e a s e f u t u r e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments?

3. Did t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y award a t t o r n e y f e e s t o w i f e ?

W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment on a l l i s s u e s .

W e do n o t d i s c u s s h u s b a n d ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d

i n f a i l i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s and e x p e n s e s of Bob

S t o c k , w i f e ' s former l i v e - i n b o y f r i e n d ; t h a t a l l e g a t i o n i s

c o m p l e t e l y unsupported by t h e r e c o r d . W a l s o note t h a t the
e

s e p a r a t i o n agreement i s n o t t o o vague; f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n

w i l l r e s u l t o n l y i f a p a r t y f a i l s t o a b i d e by t h e c o u r t ' s

decision.

The p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e was d i s s o l v e d by d e c r e e on J a n u a r y

1 0 , 1977. The d e c r e e s p e c i f i c a l l y 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 e c u t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . The s e p a r a t i o n agreement

provided i n p a r t a s follows:
 1. t h e w i f e would have c u s t o d y of t h e p a r t i e s ' two
minor c h i l d r e n ;

2 . t h e husband would pay $150 p e r month t o t a l c h i l d
support;

3 . t h e husband would c l a i m b o t h c h i l d r e n a s d e p e n d e n t s
f o r p u r p o s e s o f t a k i n g income t a x e x e m p t i o n s ;

4 . t h e w i f e would t a k e t i t l e t o t h e p a r t i e s ' h o u s e ,
which i n c l u d e s income-producing r e n t a l p r o p e r t y ; a n d ,

5. t h e s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y i n a n y f u t u r e a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e ,
modify o r i n t e r p r e t t h e a g r e e m e n t would b e awarded
reasonable attorney fees.

L e s s t h a n o n e y e a r a f t e r e n t r y of t h e d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n ,

on November 8 , 1977, t h e w i f e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o modify t h e

decree. The w i f e a l l e g e d s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e s i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s

s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y i n c r e a s i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t payments t o

$ 3 0 0 p e r month. T h a t a c t i o n w a s s e t t l e d when t h e p a r t i e s

s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e following modifications of t h e i r o r i g i n a l

s e p a r a t i o n agreement:

(1) e a c h p a r t y was a l l o w e d t o c l a i m o n e c h i l d a s a n
income t a x e x e m p t i o n ;

( 2 ) t h e husband a g r e e d t o pay f o r i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e
on t h e w i f e ' s a u t o m o b i l e ;

( 3 ) t h e h u s b a n d ' s monthly c h i l d s u p p o r t payments w e r e
i n c r e a s e d from $150 t o t a 1 , t o $112.50 p e r c h i l d , f o r
a new t o t a l o f $225, s u b j e c t t o l a t e r i n c r e a s e s .

The a b o v e - s t a t e d m o d i f i c a t i o n s w e r e a c c e p t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t , and t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e was m o d i f i e d by a n o r d e r

d a t e d and f i l e d A p r i l 1 2 , 1978.

M o d i f i c a t i o n no. 3 above i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e p r e s e n t

dispute. The f u l l t e x t of t h a t p r o v i s i o n i s :

"Child Support: [Husband] a g r e e s t o pay t o [ w i f e ]
a s and f o r s u p p o r t and m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n ,
t h e sum o f One Hundred Twelve D o l l a r s a n d 50/100
( $ 1 1 2 . 5 0 ) p e r month p e r c h i l d . . . It is further
a g r e e d t h a t i n t h e e v e n t [husband] r e c e i v e s a s [ s i c ]
i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y t h r o u g h h i s employment, [ w i f e ]
s h a l l r e c e i v e a p e r c e n t a g e i n c r e a s e i n t h e payment re-
c e i v e d f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t , which p e r c e n t a g e s h a l l b e
e q u a l t o t h e p e r c e n t a g e change i n t h e s a l a r y o f t h e
[husband]."
 The husband i s a l i c e n s e d , u n i o n plumber. H i s wage

r a i s e s s i n c e t h e d a t e of modification ( A p r i l 12, 1978) a r e

undisputed. On A p r i l 1 2 , 1 9 7 8 , h e was e a r n i n g $11.68 p e r

hour. H i s h o u r l y wage i n c r e a s e d t o $ 1 2 . 8 5 o n May 1, 1 9 7 8 ,

t o $14.06 o n J u l y 1, 1 9 7 8 , and t o $ 1 5 . 7 1 on J u l y 1 0 , 1979.

The l a s t r a t e was i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e t h i s a c t i o n was

commenced.

The l a s t - m e n t i o n e d h o u r l y wage amounts t o a n i n c r e a s e

of 3 4 . 5 p e r c e n t o v e r t h e A p r i l 1 2 , 1978, wage. Husband's

g r o s s y e a r l y e a r n i n g s , however, h a v e n o t i n c r e a s e d by t h e

same p e r c e n t a g e s . Due t o t h e n a t u r e o f h i s employment, h e

d o e s n o t work d u r i n g v a r i o u s p e r i o d s i n e a c h y e a r . Apparently

f o r t h a t r e a s o n , h i s g r o s s y e a r l y e a r n i n g s i n 1979 i n c r e a s e d

o n l y 9 p e r c e n t o v e r h i s e a r n i n g s i n 1978 ( $ 2 6 , 0 2 3 i n 1 9 7 9 ,

$24,212 i n 1 9 7 8 ) and h i s n e t e a r n i n g s i n c r e a s e d o n l y 6

percent.

The husband i n c r e a s e d h i s monthly payments by $25

d u r i n g t h e months o f J u n e , J u l y , A u g u s t , September a n d

O c t o b e r of 1979. Such i n c r e a s e amounts t o 11 p e r c e n t o v e r

t h e b a s e s u p p o r t f i g u r e o f $225. However, i n November 1 9 7 9 ,

t h e husband p a i d o n l y $150 and i n December 1 9 7 9 , h e p a i d

o n l y $200. Thus s i n c e A p r i l 1978, t h e husband h a s p a i d a

n e t o f o n l y $25 more t h a n a t o t a l amount computed a t t h e

r a t e o f $225 p e r month.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t f o r t h e y e a r 1 9 7 8 , t h e

w i f e ' s income, e x c l u s i v e of c h i l d s u p p o r t , was $ 5 , 6 3 1 . 2 1 a n d

h e r e x p e n s e s w e r e $8,850.32. The c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o u n d

t h a t " t h e b u d g e t on which [ t h e w i f e ] and h e r two ( 2 ) c h i l d r e n

e x i s t does n o t provide f o r t h e reasonably necessary e s s e n t i a l s

of l i f e . "

The w i f e f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n o n J u l y 25, 1979. I n her
" P e t i t i o n f o r S p e c i f i c Enforcement and M o d i f i c a t i o n of

Decree of D i s s o l u t i o n o f M a r r i a g e " s h e p r a y e d f o r a l l back

s u p p o r t owed t o h e r b e c a u s e of t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n c r e a s e s i n

s a l a r y s i n c e A p r i l 1 2 , 1978, and f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e

d e c r e e t o p r o v i d e f o r f u t u r e monthly s u p p o r t payments o f

$350 p e r c h i l d . She a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t h e r maiden name b e

restored t o her.

The husband r e s p o n d e d w i t h h i s own " P e t i t i o n t o Amend"

i n which h e p r a y e d t h a t t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n b e

d e c l a r e d n u l l and v o i d , a l l e g i n g t h a t s u c h a p r o v i s i o n i s

a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y and w i l l o n l y f o s t e r c o n t i n u a l l i t i g a t i o n .

H e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t f i g u r e o f $225 p e r month

should remain i n e f f e c t .

T r i a l was h e l d on J a n u a r y 23, 1980. Each p a r t y t h e n

s u b m i t t e d p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , and s u p p o r t i n g

briefs.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d judgment by "Decree Modifying

t h e Decree of D i s s o l u t i o n o f M a r r i a g e . " The new d e c r e e

o r d e r s t h e husband t o pay back s u p p o r t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e

s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t a s amended, i n t h e amount of $1,035.74;

t h a t amount i s e q u a l t o t h e i n c r e a s e s i n s u p p o r t which t h e

husband s h o u l d have p a i d a s h i s h o u r l y wages r o s e . The

d e c r e e a l s o o r d e r s t h e husband t o pay f u t u r e s u p p o r t i n t h e

amount of $275 p e r c h i l d , p e r month. The d e c r e e p r o v i d e s

t h a t a l l o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s of t h e o r i g i n a l s e p a r a t i o n agreement

a s amended s h a l l r e m a i n e f f e c t i v e . Finally, the decree

a w a r d s w i f e r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s , which were d e t e r m i n e d

a t a l a t e r h e a r i n g t o b e $1,657.16.

The husband a p p e a l s .

T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of

t h e t r i e r of f a c t . W e w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y whether 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 s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s .

F i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r p r e -
ponderance of e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t them, r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t e v i -

dence may be weak o r c o n f l i c t i n g , y e t s t i l l s u p p o r t t h e

findings. Phennicie v. Phennicie (1979), - t.
Mon , 604

P.2d 787, 790, 36 St.Rep. 2378, 2381. The judgment of t h e

t r i a l c o u r t i s presumed c o r r e c t , and t h i s C o u r t w i l l draw

e v e r y l e g i t i m a t e i n £ e r e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h a t presumption.

Marta v . Smith ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -Mont. , 622 P.2d 1011, 1015, 38

St.Rep. 28, 32; Madison Fork Ranch v . L & B Lodge, E t c .

(1980) -Mont. , 615 P.2d 900, 905-906, 37 St.Rep. 1468,

1473.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded back c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e

amount of $1,035.74, c a l c u l a t e d by d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e

i n c r e a s e s i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s h o u r l y wage r a t e . The husband

c l a i m s e r r o r , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n was i n t e n d e d t o

a p p l y t o i n c r e a s e s i n h i s n e t e a r n i n g s , which amount h e r e t o

a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 p e r c e n t i n 1979 o v e r 1978, whereas t h e c o u r t

t i e d t h e p r o v i s i o n t o i n c r e a s e s i n h i s wage r a t e , which

amounted u l t i m a t e l y t o 34.5 p e r c e n t . W e f i n d t h e r e i s no

c l e a r preponderance of e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s .

Only t h e husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i n t e r p r e t e d t h e agreement

a s c a l l i n g f o r i n c r e a s e s i n c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e same p e r -

c e n t a g e a s t h a t by which h i s n e t s a l a r y i n c r e a s e d , computed

a t t h e end of t h e y e a r . The c o u r t i s n o t bound by t h e

parties' agreements a s t o c h i l d s u p p o r t where t h e w e l f a r e of

t h e c h i l d r e n i s concerned. Winters v. Winters (1980),

-Mont. -, 610 P.2d 1165, 1168, 37 St.Rep. 847, 850. The

h u s b a n d ' s approach would be t o d e t e r m i n e a t t h e end of t h e

y e a r h i s n e t i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y o v e r t h e p r e v i o u s y e a r , and

t h e n t o i n c r e a s e h i s s u c c e e d i n g monthly s u p p o r t payments by
 t h e same P e r c e n t a g e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s i n t e r p r e t e d t h e

a g r e e m e n t i n l i g h t of t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n ;

t h e requirement t h a t c h i l d support be increased a s t h e

h u s b a n d ' s wage r a t e r i s e s w i l l b e t t e r e n a b l e t h e w i f e t o

m e e t c u r r e n t e x p e n s e s of r a i s i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c h i l d r e n .

The f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e w i f e ' s f i n a n c i a l p l i g h t s u p p o r t s u c h

an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . W e decline t o overturn the District

C o u r t ' s judgment .
I f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had a p p l i e d t h e 34.5 p e r c e n t i n -

c r e a s e i n h o u r l y wage t o f u t u r e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments, the

r e s u l t would have b e e n a t o t a l of $302.63 p e r month f o r b o t h

children. The c o u r t , i n s t e a d , s e t f u t u r e s u p p o r t payments a t

a t o t a l o f $550 p e r month, which i s a n i n c r e a s e o f 1 4 4 p e r c e n t .

I n t h e a b s e n c e o f e v i d e n c e showing a wage i n c r e a s e o f 1 4 4 p e r -

c e n t , t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n s t i t u t e s a

m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e .

Because t h e husband d i d n o t c o n s e n t i n w r i t i n g t o a

m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t c o u l d modify t h a t o b l i g a t i o n o n l y upon a showing of

changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g a s t o

make t h e o r i g i n a l c h i l d s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n u n c o n s c i o n a b l e .

S e c t i o n 40-4-208(2) ( b ) ( i ) ,
MCA; Firman v . Firman ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

,
Mont. - 610 P.2d 1 7 8 , 1 8 1 , 37 St.Rep. 888, 890. The

r e c o r d h e r e d o e s c o n t a i n e v i d e n c e showing t h e need f o r

i n c r e a s e d c h i l d s u p p o r t and t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y

t o pay s u c h s u p p o r t . There i s a n e v i - d e n t i a r y b a s i s t o

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

c o n t i n u e t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments p r e s e n t l y i n e f f e c t .

G a l l v. G a l l (19801, - ,
Mont. - 608 P.2d 496, 498, 37 St.Rep.

639, 641.

I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s

h o u r l y wage i n c r e a s e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 34 p e r c e n t from ~ p r i l
1978
t o J u l y 1979, w h i l e h i s g r o s s e a r n i n g s f o r 1979 i n c r e a s e d 9

p e r c e n t o v e r t h e 1978 g r o s s e a r n i n g s ; a n d i n a d d i t i o n t o s u c h

g r o s s e a r n i n g s , h e r e c e i v e d n o n t a x a b l e , p e r diem " s u b s i s t e n c e "

payments when h e worked o u t of M i s s o u l a which t o t a l e d $4,654

i n 1 9 7 9 , making t o t a l c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r 1979 e q u a l t o $ 3 0 , 6 7 7 .

The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e w i f e ' s income i n 1979, i n c l u d i n g

c h i l d s u p p o r t payments, was $ 8 , 3 5 6 , which was $494 l e s s t h a n h e r

e x p e n s e s ; a n d , t h a t a d d i t i o n a l money i s n e c e s s a r y t o a d e q u a t e l y

provide f o r the children. T h i s i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f sub-

s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s which r e n d e r t h e p r i o r

d e c r e e u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and j u s t i f i e s m o d i f i c a t i o n . I n re

Marriage of B l i s s (1980), Mont. , 609 P.2d 1209, 1 2 1 2 , 37

St.Rep. 708, 710-711.

The husband c o n t e s t s t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e

w i f e i n t h e amount o f $1,657.16. H e argues t h a t the wife

was n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e judgment, s o s h o u l d n o t h a v e been

awarded f e e s . W e a f f i r m t h e judgment. Here, b o t h c o n t r a c t u a l

and s t a t u t o r y b a s e s a r e p r e s e n t f o r a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s .

S e c t i o n 40-4-110 , MCA. The p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n agreement

provides, " [ s ] h o u l d a n y a c t i o n b e commenced t o e n f o r c e ,
modify o r i n t e r p r e t a n y p r o v i s i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n , the

c o u r t , a s a c o s t o f s u i t , s h a l l award a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s

f e e t o the successful party." This action f i t s squarely

within those t e r m s . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on March 31, 1 9 8 0 ,

g i v i n g t h e husband t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b j e c t t o t h e c l a i m e d

fees. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r o f J u n e 1 6 , 1980, awarded

a t t o r n e y f e e s b a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . W e f i n d no

e r r o r i n t h e award.

The w i f e r e q u e s t s a t t o r n e y f e e s be awarded upon t h i s

appeal. H e r need f o r t h e award i s shown i n t h e c o u r t ' s

findings a s t o her present financial condition. W e affirm
t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and remand f o r f i n d i n g s a s

t o r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s upon a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t t o t h e s e p -

a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t and s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA.

W e concur:

.$+%- jfidt,
Justices