Thomas v. Thomas

No. 80-34

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F MONTANA
F

1980

SUSAN W. THOMAS,

P e t i t i o n e r and Appel l a n t ,

-vs-.
DR. E. DONALL THOIIAS I

Respondent a n d Respondent.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l District,
I n and f o r t h e County o f F e r g u s , The Hc:norabl6
LeRoy McFinnon, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l o f Record:

For A p p e l l a n t :

Goetz a n d Madden, Bozeman, Montana

For R e s p o n d e n t :

K. F o b e r t F o s t e r , Lewistown, Montana

Subniitted on B r i e f s : August 1 3 , 1980

Decided :

Filed:

-8*kT
Clerk
M r . 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 of
t h e Court.

c his i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment i n t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l

~ i s t r i c t ,F e r g u s County, which g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion

t o amend t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n and d e n i e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s

motion t o q u a s h and t o v a c a t e .

Susan Thomas, p e t i t i o n e r and a p p e l l a n t , and D r . E.

Donna11 Thomas, r e s p o n d e n t , were m a r r i e d on J u l y 2 , 1973.

One c h i l d was b o r n t o t h e m a r r i a g e on May 22, 1975. The

p r i n c i p a l assets of t h e m a r r i a g e c o n s i s t e d of D r . Thomas'

m e d i c a l p r a c t i c e and t h e f a m i l y home i n Lewistown, Montana.

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

f e c t s and two a u t o m o b i l e s .

On December 1 6 , 1977, t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a

s e p a r a t i o n agreement whereby e a c h a g r e e d t h a t pending

d i v o r c e o r r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , Susan would have c u s t o d y of t h e i r

c h i l d and D r . Thomas would make maintenance and s u p p o r t

payments. A d d i t i o n a l l y , they agreed t h a t t h e family resi-

dence b e l e f t i n t h e i r j o i n t names and o t h e r a s s e t s w e r e

d i s t r i b u t e d accordingly. I n t h e e v e n t of d i v o r c e proceed-

i n g s , n e i t h e r p a r t y was t o be bound by t h e agreement re-

l a t i n g t o the property division.

On F e b r u a r y 27, 1978, p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d f o r a d i s s o l u -

t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e was i r r e -

t r i e v a b l y broken. The p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t e d t h a t s h e b e

awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and prayed f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t

payments, maintenance payments and a n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of

a l l m a r i t a l assets and l i a b i l i t i e s .

On August 24, 1978, a h e a r i n g was conducted on t h e

petition. On t h e second day of t r i a l , t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t
t

judge made 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 and
entered a w r i t t e n decree. The 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 l a w r e c i t e d t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e w a s i r r e t r i e v a b l y

broken, t h a t t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d w a s g r a n t e d t o p e t i -
t i o n e r and t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was t o pay r e a s o n a b l e c h i l d

s u p p o r t payments. The d e c r e e awarded p e t i t i o n e r $200 p e r

month f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t and $750 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s . The

f i n d i n g s c o n t a i n e d no r u l i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o p e t i t i o n e r ' s

r e q u e s t f o r maintenance, and t h e d e c r e e awarded none.

The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s c o n t a i n no d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e

t o t a l n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s . The f i n d i n g s c o n t a i n no

d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e n e t worth of t h e d o c t o r ' s p r a c t i c e o r

of t h e r e l a t i v e f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s by e i t h e r p a r t y .

The c o u r t concluded t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s h o u l d pay a monthly sum

t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r u n t i l $15,000 h a s been p a i d as p a r t of t h e

property settlement.

The f i n d i n g s of f a c t a r e i n c o n c l u s i v e a l s o as t o t h e

f a m i l y home, t h e t i t l e t o which i s i n j o i n t tenancy. The

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 5 states, " [ t l h a t t h e

p a r t i e s a c q u i r e d a n e q u i t y i n a home i n Lewistown, of

unknown v a l u e . . ." No d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e home a p p e a r s i n

e i t h e r the c o u r t ' s findings o r the decree, thus leaving it

i n j o i n t t e n a n c y i n b o t h of t h e p a r t i e s ' names.

F i v e months a f t e r t h e d e c r e e was e n t e r e d , on J a n u a r y

2 4 , 1979, r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a motion r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e

d e c r e e be amended. The motion r e q u e s t e d t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t
t

t o award t h e f a m i l y home t o r e s p o n d e n t . The motion was

n o t i c e d f o r h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 1, 1979. However, no h e a r -

i n g w a s held a t t h a t t i m e .

Ten months l a t e r o n November 5 , 1979, t h e ~ i s t r i c t

Court s e t a hearing date. P e t i t i o n e r moved t o quash t h e

motion t o amend and a t t e m p t e d t o v a c a t e t h e h e a r i n g d a t e .
T h i s motion was d e n i e d . On December 5, 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t found t h a t i t was t h e o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n of t h e c o u r t
t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e f a m i l y home t o r e s p o n d e n t and t h a t t h e

c o u r t had a p p a r e n t l y e r r e d i n n o t s o p r o v i d i n g i n 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 l a w and d e c r e e . Respondent

c l a i m e d mere c l e r i c a l e r r o r which w a s c o r r e c t a b l e under Rule

6 O ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g r e e d . Amended

f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and a n amended

d e c r e e were e n t e r e d on December 1 0 , 1979. The amended d e c r e e

awarded t h e f a m i l y home t o r e s p o n d e n t , and p e t i t i o n e r now

appeals t h a t decree.

The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether t h e a s s e r t e d m i s -

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

s i o n s of law and d e c r e e i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a p p o r t i o n -

ment of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y was mere " c l e r i c a l e r r o r " and

c o r r e c t a b l e under Rule 6 0 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., o r whether i t was

" j u d i c i a l e r r o r , " t h e r e f o r e leaving t h e D i s t r i c t Court

w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o amend t h e d e c r e e b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t
d i d n o t a c t w i t h i n t h e t i m e s e t by s t a t u t e .

Because t h e house i s a m a j o r , i f n o t t h e m a j o r , a s s e t

of t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e l a c k of a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of i t s e q u i t y ,

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

D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i t s a t t e m p t t o amend t h e d e c r e e i n

question.
Rule 6 0 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides:

"Clerical mistakes. C l e r i c a l mistakes i n
judgments, o r d e r s o r o t h e r p a r t s of t h e
r e c o r d , and i n p l e a d i n g s , and e r r o r s t h e r e i n
a r i s i n g from o v e r s i g h t o r o m i s s i o n may be
c o r r e c t e d by t h e c o u r t a t any t i m e of i t s
own i n i t i a t i v e o r on t h e motion of any p a r t y
and a f t e r such n o t i c e , i f any, a s t h e c o u r t
orders. "
 Rule 6 0 ( a ) p r e s e r v e s t h e common-law power of D i s t r i c t

C o u r t s t o c o r r e c t c l e r i c a l e r r o r s i n judgments a t any t i m e ,

s i n c e c o r r e c t i o n of such e r r o r by d e f i n i t i o n d o e s n o t a l t e r

t h e s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s .

C o r r e c t i o n of judgment f o r " j u d i c i a l e r r o r s " a f f e c t s

t h e s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s as pronounced i n t h e

judgment. A t i m e l i m i t a t i o n i s imposed on a D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ' s power t o a l t e r a d e c r e e . Motions t o amend under

R u l e s 50, 52, and 59, M.R.Civ.P., must be made w i t h i n t e n

d a y s f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y o f judgment. Motions t o c o r r e c t

j u d i c i a l m i s t a k e s must be made w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s a f t e r

judgment. Rule 6 0 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. R e s p o n d e n t ' s motion t o

amend was made w e l l a f t e r t h e d a t e s s t a t e d . I f t h i s Court

f i n d s t h a t t h e e r r o r w a s merely " c l e r i c a l , " under Rule 6 0 ( a )

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o amend t h e d e c r e e i n

t h i s case. I f , however, t h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e e r r o r was

n o t " c l e r i c a l " b u t " j u d i c i a l , " t h e District Court i s without

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t h e amended f i n d i n g s of f a c t and

d e c r e e b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t conform t o t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s .

"The t i m e and p r o c e d u r a l l i m i t a t i o n s f o r m o t i o n s
s u b s e q u e n t t o judgment ... a r e mandatory.
S e i b e l v . Byers ( Y u r i c k ) , 136 Mont. 39, 344 P.2d
129. I n r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s by t h i s C o u r t , Cain v.
H a r r i n g t o n , 1 6 1 Mont. 401, 506 P.2d 1375; and
L e i t h e i s e r v. Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , 1 6 1 Mont. 343,
505 P. 2d 1203, we have r e i t e r a t e d t h e need t o
make f i n a l t h e judgments of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
s u b j e c t t o a p p e a l t h a t would n o t u n n e c e s s a r i l y
lengthen l i t i g a t i o n . I n Cain and L e i t h e i s e r we
s t r i c t l y a p p l i e d Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., i n order t o
p u t t o a n end t h e l i t i g a t i o n of t h o s e a c t i o n s . "
Armstrong v . High C r e s t O i l s , I n c . ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164
Mont. 187, 1 9 6 , 520 P.2d 1081, 1086.

I n S t a t e e x r e l . Union Bank and T r u s t Co. v. D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 108 Mont. 151, 91 P.2d 403, 406, w e s t a t e d :

. .. ' I n c a s e of an omission o r e r r o r i n t h e
r e c o r d , t h e power e x i s t s i n t h e c o u r t t o amend
s u c h r e c o r d s o t h a t i t s h a l l conform t o t h e
 a c t u a l f a c t s and t r u t h o f t h e c a s e : -u- a c o u r t
b t
c a n n o t amend i t s r e c o r d t o c o r r e c t a j u d i c i a l
error - - d t h e e f f e c t - juzicial -
o r r o of non-
action.' ... 'The a u t h o r i t y - - c o u r t t o
of a
amend its r e c o r d Q - - a nunc pro t u n c o r d e r i s
----
t o k e i- t t h e t r u t h , -t-o t t-m a k e i t
bu n - o -
speak what i-d- n o t speak b u t ought - -
-- t id t o have
spoken. . .'
" T h a t o r d e r s made by a c o u r t t h r o u g h m i s t a k e ,
---
inadvertance, - - want of s u f f i c i e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,
o v e r s i g h t o r o t h e r w i s e , where t h e y a f f e c t - -
t h e sub-
stantial r i g h m - are judicial errors
- c a n n o t b e c o F e c t e d o r removed Q summary
and
a c t i o n - - c o u r t w h i c h m a d e them .
of the -- ..
" (Ci-
t a t i o n s omitted. ) (Emphasis added. )

S i n c e t h e f a m i l y home, n e x t t o t h e d o c t o r ' s m e d i c a l
p r a c t i c e w a s t h e s i n g l e most v a l u a b l e and i m p o r t a n t a s s e t

b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o comprehend how t h e

c o u r t c o u l d o v e r l o o k s p e c i f i c a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f t h a t asset.
I t i s even more d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d why r e s p o n d e n t

f a i l e d t o b r i n g t h e a l l e g e d "omission" t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n -
t i o n by f i l i n g a t i m e l y motion t o amend o r c l a r i f y t h e

d e c r e e , i f h e r e a l l y b e l i e v e d t h e c o u r t had e r r e d .

The a t t e m p t e d change by t h e amended f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e

a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s by de-

p r i v i n g h e r of h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y home. Such e r r o r

i s j u d i c i a l and c o u l d n o t b e c o r r e c t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

e x c e p t by motion made w i t h i n t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s of Rules

5 0 ( b ) , 52(b), 59 o r 6 0 ( b ) ( I ) , M.R.Civ.P., available for the

c o r r e c t i o n of j u d i c i a l e r r o r . No s u c h motion having been

made, t h e e r r o r was c o r r e c t a b l e o n l y by a p p e a l which was

n e v e r t a k e n by e i t h e r of t h e p a r t i e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,

t h e r e f o r e , l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make t h e change e f f e c t e d
by h i s e n t r y of t h e amended f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e .
There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r i g i n a l

f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e a r e d e f i c i e n t . They f a i l t o make a

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' t o t a l n e t worth. They f a i l t o
d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l u e of r e s p o n d e n t ' s m e d i c a l p r a c t i c e , t h e

r e l a t i v e f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t h e r e t o by e a c h p a r t y and t o

apportion t h a t asset. They f a i l t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p a r t i e s '

e q u i t y i n t h e f a m i l y home and t o e q u i t a b l y d i s p o s e of t h a t

asset by e x p r e s s language. However, s i n c e n e i t h e r p a r t y

made a t i m e l y a p p e a l of t h e o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e ,

t h e p a r t i e s a r e bound by i t , u n l e s s a n a p p r o p r i a t e proceed-

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

f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e .

S i n c e t h e amended f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e i n v o l v e a n a t -

tempt by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o c o r r e c t a j u d i c i a l e r r o r

which it had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o remedy, t h e y must be s e t

a s i d e and t h e o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e r e i n s t a t e d .

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s r e s u l t l e a v e s open t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of

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

f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e o b s e r v e d above. However, i t i s a c i r -

cumstance f o r which t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c o u r t are a l l re-

s p o n s i b l e , e a c h h a v i n g had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o t i m e l y c l a r i f y

t h e o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s and d e c r e e f o l l o w i n g t h e i r e n t r y .

The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .

W concur:
e
/ I

Justices