No. 91-273
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1991
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
CYNTHIA JO EIDE,
Petitioner and Respondent,
V.
CLARENCE A. EIDE, JR.,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteeth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Rosebud,
The Honorable Joe L. Hegel, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Leonard J. Haxby, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana
For Respondent:
J. Dennis Corbin; Brown, Huss & Corbin, Miles City,
Montana
i Submitted on Briefs: October 24, 1991
Decided: December 3, 1991
Clerk
Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The appellant, Clarence Eide, Jr., appeals from the decree of
dissolution of his marriage to the respondent, Cynthia Jo Eide,
entered in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Rosebud County,
Montana, which awarded the respondent $400 per month maintenance.
We affirm.
The appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Was the District Court's award of maintenance to the wife
supported by the evidence?
2. Did the District Court err in awarding maintenance in an
amount exceeding the amount requested by the wife in her petition
for dissolution of marriage?
Cynthia and Clarence Eide, Jr., were married on December 23,
1967. They separated in March of 1988; the Sixteenth Judicial
District Court entered a decree of dissolution on March 28, 1991.
The parties have two children who were of legal age at the time of
the dissolution. Therefore, the only issues on appeal concern
maintenance.
During the marriage, the wife was primarily a homemaker who
worked at various j o b s . The husband was employed by Montana Power
Company during the last nine years of the marriage, earning
approximately $40,000 per year at the time of separation.
On July 1, 1988, the wife filed her petition for dissolution
of marriage seeking maintenance, an equitable division of the
marital property, her attorney's fees, and other equitable relief
as the court deemed proper. Shortly thereafter the husband, wife,
2
and their respective attorneys began negotiations to amicably
determine the distribution of the marital property. A document
drafted by the husband's attorney and titled "Separation, Custody,
Support and Property Settlement Agreement" resulted from these
negotiations. The husband signed this document on August 12, 1988,
and forwarded it to the wife who failed to sign it.
Among other provisions, the document set forth a division of
the marital property. The wife was to receive the family home
including all liabilities affecting the home (approximately
$59,000), $10,000 cash, a vehicle, household goods, and assorted
hand tools. The document provided that the husband would receive
four vehicles, a motorcycle, a jet boat, various tools, guns, a
hangar, an airplane, some Idaho property, his payroll savings, his
employee stock shares, credit union stock shares, and the amount in
the couple's checking account. The husband was to assume the
liabilities associated with these items of approximately $4,745.
The document made no reference to maintenance.
After a breakdown in negotiations, the husband's attorney
scheduled the dissolution hearing which was held on August 25,
1989. At the hearing, the husband was represented by counsel while
the wife was not.
The hearing revealed a great disparity in earning capacity
between the husband and the wife. The husband continued to earn
between $40,000 and $45,000 per year at Montana Power Company while
the wife, employed as a waitress, earned approximately $574 per
month (including $74 per month interest income on the cash
3
settlement the wife received from the husband). Although the wife
failed to sign the Settlement Agreement, the hearing revealed that
she agreed to it during the oral negotiations even though she felt
it was unfair. Additionally, at the time of negotiations, the wife
agreed not to accept maintenance. However, when she received the
written agreement, circumstances had changed and she no longer felt
the terms of the agreement were fair. Finally, the hearing
revealed that the husband had substantially complied with the terms
of the agreement.
After hearing the evidence presented by the parties, the court
ordered the parties to submit financial statements and took the
matter under advisement. On December 13, 1990, the District Court
issued a Memorandum and Order disposing of the case. The District
Court found that the wife lacked sufficient property to provide for
her reasonable needs and that she was unable to support herself
through appropriate employment. In addition to adopting the
portions of the Settlement Agreement concerning property
distribution, the court ordered the husband to pay $400 per month
permanent spousal maintenance. The husband appeals the District
Court's award of maintenance to the wife.
T
I.
Was the District Court's award of maintenance to the wife
supported by the evidence?
A district court must engage in a two-tiered analysis when
awarding maintenance in a dissolution proceeding. Maintenance can
be awarded after an equitable division of the marital property has
4
been established pursuant to § 40-4-202, MCA, and the criteria of
5 40-4-203, MCA, have been satisfied. A district court's wide
discretion in determining a maintenance award will not be disturbed
unless it is clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Aanenson (1979),
183 Mont. 229, 235, 598 P.2d 1120, 1123. Thus, this Court's
function on appeal is limited to a determination of whether the
district court's findings are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a),
M.R.Civ.P.; In re Marriage of Luisi (1988), 232 Mont. 243, 248, 756
P.2d 456, 459.
In the case at bar, the parties did not raise the question of
whether the property was equitably distributed, nor did they appeal
the distribution. Therefore, we limit our review to the issues of
maintenance.
In a dissolution proceeding, the court may award maintenance
only if the court finds that the spouse seeking maintenance lacks
sufficient property to provide for one's reasonable needs and is
unable to support oneself through appropriate employment. Section
40-4-203(1), MCA. In this case, the court found that the wife
lacked sufficient property to support herself. Apart fromthe cash
settlement, all property the wife received was either income
consuming or at least non-income-producing, which contributed to
her inability to support herself. The court also found that the
wife was unable to support herself through appropriate employment.
The wife had no marketable skills because during the 21 years of
marriage she primarily cared for the children and the home.
Consequently, she was only able to earn minimum wage. These facts
5
are supported by the record and are sufficient to satisfy the first
tier of !j 40-4-203(1), MCA, supporting the wife's eligibility for
maintenance.
After finding the wife was eligible for maintenance, the court
engaged in step two of the analysis to determine the amount and
duration of maintenance pursuant to !j 40-4-203(2), MCA. That
section sets forth specific factors which the court must consider
in making this determination including:
1. The financial resources of the party seeking
maintenance, including the marital property apportioned
to that spouse and that spouse's ability to meet his or
her own needs independently:
2. the time necessary to acquire sufficient education
or training to enable the spouse seeking maintenance to
find appropriate employment;
3. the standard of living established during the
marriage:
4. the duration of the marriage;
5. the age and physical and emotional condition of the
spouse seeking maintenance; and
6. the other spouse's ability to meet his or her own
needs while meeting the needs of the spouse seeking
maintenance.
The court addressed the above criteria in its Memorandum and
Order, dated December 13, 1990, before awarding $400 per month
permanent maintenance to the wife. First, the court found a great
disparity between the incomes of the parties. With regard to the
husband's earning capacity, the court noted that he has been
employed by Montana Power Company for a number of years earning an
average of $40,000 per year and is expected to continue earning
approximately the same amount. With regard to the wife's earning
6
capacity, the court found that, including the interest income from
the $10,000 cash settlement, the wife's independent earnings of
$574 per month were slightly above the poverty level and
insufficient to meet her monthly needs.
After properly considering the other factors of 5 40- 4- 203 ( 2 ) ,
MCA, the court found that the wife was entitled to $400 per month
permanent maintenance because: (1) she would not benefit from job
training; (2) with the husband's income and his retirement benefits
he would continue to enjoy the standard of living maintained during
the marriage while the wife, even with maintenance, would enjoy a
substantially lower standard of living; (3) of the long duration of
the marriage (approximately 21 years prior to separation) : and (4)
the husband was able to pay maintenance while meeting his own
needs.
In light of the foregoing facts, we find that the District
Court's findings were not clearly erroneous. We affirm the
judgment of the District Court on this issue.
11.
Did the District Court err in awarding maintenance in an
amount exceeding the amount requested by the wife in her petition
for dissolution of marriage?
The husband contends that even if this Court finds that the
maintenance award is supported by the evidence, the award is void.
The husband's basis for this contention is that the District Court
abused its discretion in awarding maintenance in an amount greater
than the amount requested by the wife in her petition. We
7
disagree.
The wife contends that although she only requested $300 per
month maintenance in her petition, the court was not precluded from
granting other appropriate relief if such relief was supported by
the record. The wife's request in her petition for "other and
further suitable arrangements as the Court may deem just and
proper" was a sufficient request to award maintenance in an amount
greater than requested by the wife. Further, the wife also cites
Rule 54(c), M.R.Civ.P., in support of the court's authority. Rule
54(c), M.R.Civ.P. (1989), provides in part:
Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered
by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief
to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is
entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief
in his pleadings.
Rule 54(c), M.R.Civ.P., grants the court discretion which must be
viewed according to the circumstances of the case. In re Marriage
of Hughes (1989), 236 Mont. 427, 430, 770 P.2d 499, 501.
In light of our discussion on the first issue above, the
District Court had the power to award maintenance in an amount
greater than the wife sought in her petition because such an award
was supported by the evidence. Therefore, we hold that the court
did not err and the judgment of the District Court on this issue is
affinned.
8
W e concur:
-ices
9
December 3. 1991
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following
named:
Leonard J. Haxby
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 3008
Butte, MT 59702-3008
J. Dennis Corbin
Brown, Huss & Corbin
P.O. Box 128
Miles City, MT 59301
ED SMITH
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF MONTANA
BY:
Deputy L