No, 12196
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF WE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1972
- - -
WALTER FRANCKE ,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
SANDRA J E A N FRANCKE,
Defendant and Respondent,
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h .Tudicial. D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For Appellant :
S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana,
C h a r l e s F, Moses and K, D. T o l l i v e r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s ,
Montana.
F o r Respondent :
Longan and Holmstrom, B i l l i n g s , Montana.
Robert W, Holmstrom a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana.
Submitted : October 27, 1972
Decided :
JAN^ 197,
Filed: ,fr\T15 ."?-3
,*
ivir. J u s t i c e (;tine B. 3 a i y d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t award i n a
d i v o r c e judgment e n t e r e d September 20, 1971, i n f a v o r o f e a c h
p a r t y a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S t i l l w a t e r County,
following t r i a l t o t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g without a jury. The a c t i o n
was commenced by p l a i n t i f f D r . W a l t e r Francke and d e f e n d a n t
Xrs. Sandra J e a n Francke c o u n t e r c l a i m e d f o r d i v o r c e .
The Franckes h a v e t h r e e c h i l d r e n , a son now I1 y e a r s o l d ,
a son now 10 y e a r s o l d , and a d a u g h t e r now 9 y e a r s o l d . The
decree, with t h e w i f e ' s consent, granted custody of t h e o l d e s t
child t o t h e husband and c u s t o d y o f t h e two younger c h i l d r e n
to t h e w i f e , The w i f e was g r a n t e d a monthly alimony award of
$1,000 u n t i l d e a t h o r r e m a r r i a g e , and $150 p e r month s u p p o r t
f o r each o f t h e two c h i l d r e n i n h e r c u s t o d y . Provision was
rnade f o r t h e husband t o pay a l l m e d i c a l and d e n t a l e x p e n s e s of
aL1 t h r e e c h i l d r e n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e husband was o r d e r e d t o
d e s i g n a t e t h e w i f e i r r e v o c a b l e b e n e f i c i a r y of $50,000 i n l i f e
i n s u r m c e t o p r o t e c t t h e alimony. Each p a r t y a d m i t s t o t h i s
Court t h a t t h e alimony award h a s been t e r m i n a t e d by r e m a r r i a g e , .
The p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d
-:hts i B ~ f i E o s e t o v e r t:o t h e husband h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e j o i n t l y
te
'7eid p r o p e r t y and d i r e c t e d t h e husband t o pay t h e w i f e t h e c a s h
;urn of $60,000; $30,000 t o b e due i n 1 9 7 1 and $10,000 each y e a r
tor three successive years. The d e c r e e f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h e
husband t o s e t o v e r h i s i n t e r e s t i n some household f u r n i t u r e and
h i s i n t e r e s t i n a n a u t o m o b i l e used by t h e w i f e . It appears t h a t
;:he b u l k of t h e h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e was a c q u i r e d a f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e ,
~riiroughh i s f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n and was h e l d a l m o s t e n t i r e l y
Irs s o l e ownership by him. Motion f o r a new t r i a l was made on
t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e judgment g o v e r n i n g t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t was
~ l o cs u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e , The motion was d e n i e d and t h i s
a p p e a l was t a k e n .
P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s 5 u t one i s s u e o n a p p e a l , w h e ~ h e st h e
s v i d e n c e j u s t i f i e s t h e award t o defendant w i f e of $60,000 i n
lieu of p r o p e r t y , when t h e c o u r t a l s o awarded t h e w i f e alimony.
The judgment of d i v o r c e , s u p p o r t , alimony, custody and o t h e r
p r o p e r t y awards a r e n o t c h a l l e n g e d on a p p e a l ,
From t h e r e c o r d , i t appears t h a t D r . Francke began h i s
n ~ e d i c a lp r a c t i c e i n B i l l i n g s i n 1955. I n 1959, he married M r s .
Francke a t C h a r l e s t o n , West V i r g i n i a . A t t h a t time h e had
zstablished a successful practice. A t t h e time of t h e marriage
Dr. Francke was approximately 40 y e a r s o l d ; Mrs. Francke was 2 2
years old. The evidence i s i n c o n f l i c t on m a t t e r s of f i n a n c i a l
worth, however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t found i n i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t
No, 8 t h a t p l a i n t i f f averaged i n e x c e s s of $81,000 p e r y e a r
t a x a b l e income d u r i n g t h e p a s t f o u r y e a r s ; t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e
3f t h e marriage p l a i n t i f f a c q u i r e d p r o p e r t y v a l u e d i n e x c e s s of
$250,000; t h a t t h e p a r t i e s l i v e d i n a l u x u r i o u s home, t r a v e l e d ,
and d i d a l l t h i n g s compatible w i t h t h e i r f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n .
The c o u r t found t h a t d e f e n d a n t , t h r e e y e a r s p r i o r t o h e r
mdrriage, r e c e i v e d t h e Miss C o n g e n i a l i t y award a t t h e Miss
~ m e r i c aPageant i n 1956, r e s u l t i n g i n appearances on n a t i o n a l
t e l e v i s i o n a s an a c t r e s s ; t h a t she had p a r t i a l l y completed h e r
s ~ u d i e s i n c l o t h i n g d e s i g n and was employed by a n a t i o n a l company
i n a public r e l a t i o n s capacity, receiving a very s u b s t a n t i a l in-
come; t h a t a s a r e s u l t of t h e marriage s h e h a s n o t engaged i n
t h e s e occupations and now i s unable t o resume h e r c a r e e r .
The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t of t h e p r o p e r t y accumulated
b y p l a i n t i f f d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e marriage only two p a r c e l s
sf land were i n j o i n t tenancy and t h e b a l a n c e i n p l a i n t i f f ' s
name a l o n e ; t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e marriage defendant a i d e d
p i a i n t i f f i n f u r t h e r i n g h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r by p a r t i c i p a t i o n
i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , medical a u x i l i a r i e s and i n p r e p a r a t i o n of
medical e x h i b i t s f o r r a d i o l o g i c a l conventions.
7 he d i s t r i c t c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d more
i n t h i s c a s e than mere f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s .
The law h a s never c o n f i n e d ' j o i n t e f f o r t s ' t o
such a narrow meaninn. The m a r i t a l p a r t n e r s h i p
---- -
i s more t h a n a b u s i n z s s r e l a t i o n . The p e c u n i a r y
and p r o p r i e t a r y f r u i t s of t h e marriage a r e
f r e q u e n t l y a c q u i r e d by j oi-nt e f f o r t , even though
a c t u a l f i n a n c i a l o u t l a y may be more t h e c o n t r i -
b u t i o n of one spouse than t h e o t h e r .
his h o l d i n g does n o t make Montana a community
p r o p e r t y s t a t e . There i s no r e q u i r e d p e r c e n t a g e
of a l l o c a t i o n t o be a p p l i e d i n a l l c a s e s . Each
c a s e must b e looked a t - by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d i -
v i d u a l l y w i t h an eye t o i t s unique c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e , we a r e n o t compelled
t o s t a t e t h a t e q u a l d i v i s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y i s
an i n e q u i t a b l e r e s u l t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) .
P l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t e n t i o n s a r e n o t v a l i d i n l i g h t of t h e
pronouncements i n Cook. Each c a s e must be viewed i n d i v i d u a l l y
and each i s a s d i f f e r e n t a s a r e t h e persons and t h e i r l i v e s
t h a t a r e involved. Mrs. ~ u n n e w e l l ' s s i t u a t i o n a s a ranch w i f e
would n o t b e t h e same a s M r s . ~ r a n c k e ' sa s t h e w i f e of a
r a d i o l o g i s t , whose income i s d e r i v e d from r e f e r r a l s from
physicians. Therefore h e r s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , entertainment,
and work i n t h e medical a s s o c i a t i o n a u x i l i a r i e s would be more
s i g n i f i c a n t than i f s h e were married t o a g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r ,
o r of v e r y l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e i f she were a ranch w i f e . In
ocher words, t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s argued by p l a i n t i f f cannot con-
,-.- O ~
'.L . Conceding a l l p a r t i e s g i v e up something when t h e y d e c i d e
LO marry, t h e c o u r t would have t o look t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a s e .
Some wives can s t e p back i n t o t h e i r p r i o r jobs o r c a r e e r s and
some cannot. It would seem t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e time of t h e
d i v o r c e looks a t t h i s a s p e c t of t h e p a r t i e s ' l i v e s a s a con-
t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n terms of a b i l i t y t o
proceed t o r e e n t e r g a i n f u l employment.
W do n o t f e e l t h e argument a s t o t h e adequacy of t h e c h i l d
e
s u p p u r t award o r i t s i n c l u s i o n i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n i s r e l e v a n t .
T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l n o t comment on i t .
A f t e r a c l o s e examination of a l l of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n
t h e r e c o r d , w e f e e l t h e award appealed from i s supported by
t h e r e c o r d and t h e a p p l i c a b l e law,
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
'~ssociate Justice t
/7 Chief Justice