No. 1.3260
I N THE SUPREME COUIIT OF T H E STATE OF MONTANA
197 6
BETTY GUNN ESCHENBUKG,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-VS -
EMIL P. ESCHENBURG,
Defendant a n d A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Small, Cummins, Hatch and Gregory J a c k s o n , Helena,
Montana
Gregory J a c k s o n a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Hughes, B e n n e t t , Cain, K e l l n e r and S u l l i v a n ,
Helena, Montana
S t u a r t L. K e l l n e r a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
For Amicus C u r i a e :
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
Donald S m i t h a p p e a r e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
Helena, Montana
S u b m i t t e d : October 26, 1976
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
t h e Court.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , L e w i s and C l a r k County, f o l l o w i n g a 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.
T h i s a p p e a l s t e m s from t h e g r a n t i n g of a n a b s o l u t e
d i v o r c e t o b o t h p a r t i e s on t h e grounds o f i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i f -
f e r e n c e s , t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n , and a n award of alimony t o
plaintiff; The d i v o r c e p e r se i s n o t a t i s s u e , o n l y t h e p r o p e r t y
d i v i s i o n and alimony award a r e q u e s t i o n e d by p l a i n t i f f .
A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l t h e p a r t i e s had been m a r r i e d t h i r t y -
two y e a r s , t h e i r f o u r c h i l d r e n had r e a c h e d m a j o r i t y w i t h o n e
d a u g h t e r s t i l l l i v i n g w i t h p l a i n t i f f , and t h e y had a c q u i r e d t h e
following property:
A r e s i d e n c e i n Helena, Montana, w i t h a mortgage
thereon;
A r e s i d e n c e i n V i r g i n i a , w i t h a mortgage t h e r e o n ;
S t o c k s and s e c u r i t i e s ;
P a i d up l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s (amounting t o
$50,000) ;
P e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y and household goods;
Two a u t o m o b i l e s ( a S c o u t and a n O l d s m o b i l e ) ; and
Two unimproved l o t s i n V i r g i n i a .
T h e i r r e l a t i v e g r o s s incomes a t t h i s t i m e w e r e :
Defendant: $2,00O/month - Army p e n s i o n ,
$l,OOO/month - r e a l e s t a t e salesman
$350/month - r e n t a l income
$3,35O/month - Total
Plaintiff : $475/month - Secretary.
During t h e f i r s t 27 y e a r s of t h e i r m a r r i a g e d e f e n d a n t
was a career Army o f f i c e r , o b t a i n i n g t h e r a n k of B r i g a d i e r
G e n e r a l a t t h e t i m e of h i s r e t i r e m e n t , and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n
t h r e e extended f o r e i g n t o u r s of d u t y i n World War 11, Korea,
and Vietnam. Throughout t h i s t i m e , d e f e n d a n t s o l e l y c o n t r i b u t e d
f i n a n c i a l l y t o t h e marriage.
P l a i n t i f f married defendant before f i n i s h i n g c o l l e g e
and t h r o u g h o u t t h e m a r r i a g e managed t h e household, r a i s e d t h e i r
f o u r c h i l d r e n ( s u c h r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s handled a l o n e d u r i n g de-
f e n d a n t ' s foreign t o u r s of d u t y ) , e n t e r t a i n e d a t s o c i a l functions,
worked i n t h e Army w i v e s r a u x i l i a r i e s , n u r s e r i e s , Red C r o s s r e l i e f ,
and a s a v o l u n t a r y h o s p i t a l a i d e . She g a i n e d t h e s e c r e t a r i a l
employment, mentioned above, a f t e r t h e commencement of t h i s a c t i o n .
The c o m p l a i n t o r i g i n a l l y a l l e g e d m e n t a l c r u e l t y , b u t
was l a t e r amended, a l l e g i n g i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s . Plain-
t i f f and d e f e n d a n t were t h e o n l y w i t n e s s e s t o t e s t i f y a t t r i a l .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d a n a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e t o b o t h p a r t i e s ,
awarded p l a i n t i f f alimony o f $500/month, and d i v i d e d t h e p r o p e r t y ,
s u b j e c t t o any i n d e b t e d n e s s t h e r e o n , a s f o l l o w s :
To t h e p l a i n t i f f :
The r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y i n Helena, Montana.
The household goods and f u r n i s h i n g s .
The 1972 S c o u t a u t o m o b i l e .
To t h e d e f e n d a n t :
The r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y i n V i r g i n i a .
The two unimproved l o t s i n V i r g i n i a .
The 1969 Oldsmobile a u t o m o b i l e .
The s t o c k s and s e c u r i t i e s w e r e t o be d i v i d e d i n k i n d ,
o r i f d e s i r e d , s o l d on t h e market w i t h t h e p r o c e e d s s o d i v i d e d .
T h i s d i v i s i o n was t o be one h a l f t o e a c h p a r t y of t h e r e m a i n d e r ,
a f t e r a l l o w i n g f o r t h e c r e d i t s of e a c h p a r t y found by t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t i n making t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n .
Defendant was a l s o d i r e c t e d t o name t h e p l a i n t i f f i r -
r e v o c a b l y a s b e n e f i c i a r y t o $25,000 of t h e p a i d up i n s u r a n c e .
Each p a r t y was t o pay h i s o r h e r own c o u r t c o s t s and
attorney 's fees.
The d e f e n d a n t r a i s e s f o u r i s s u e s :
(1) Whether 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 p r o p e r t y
- 3 -
d i v i s i o n and alimony award?
( 2 ) Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s Army p e n s i o n was a p r o p e r b a s i s
f o r t h e alimony award?
( 3 ) Whether a f i n d i n g o f f a u l t on t h e p a r t o f d e f e n d a n t
i s n e c e s s a r y t o a l l o w a n alimony award f o r p l a i n t i f f ?
( 4 ) Whether t h e a p p l i c a b l e alimony s t a t u t e i s a n un-
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l form of s e x d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ?
I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s
f a r r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s o l v i n g p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s and i t s
judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r a b u s e o f
that discretion. Cook v . Cook, 159 Mont. 98, 495 P.2d 591;
F r a n c k e v. F r a n c k e , 1 6 1 Mont. 98, 504 P.2d 990; Roe v . Roe,
Mont. I
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t r i b u -
t i o n s i n t h i s 32 y e a r l o n g m a r r i a g e w e r e t h e r a i s i n g o f t h e 4
c h i l d r e n , managing t h e h o u s e h o l d , e n t e r t a i n i n g a t s o c i a l a c t i v i -
t i e s and v o l u n t e e r i n g h e r s e r v i c e s t o o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d
t o d e f e n d a n t ' s career. F u r t h e r m o r e , a l a r g e m a j o r i t y of t h i s
w a s performed a l o n e w h i l e d e f e n d a n t was away from home p u r s u i n g
t h a t career. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t even t h o u g h t h e s e
c o n t r i b u t i o n s d i f f e r e d i n kind, they w e r e of equal weight t o t h e
f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t .
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
d i d n o t c r e d i t him enough f o r h i s f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s . How-
ever, w e f i n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s i n complete accord
w i t h t h e modern t r e n d of Cook, F r a n c k e , and - t o c o n s i d e r more
Roe
t h a n f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o a m a r r i a g e when d i v i d i n g t h e
p r o p e r t y s i n c e m a r r i a g e i s much more t h a n a b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p .
W e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
judgment which a f f e c t s a n e q u a l p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n b a s e d upon
e q u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s by e a c h p a r t y . A s s t a t e d i n Cook, t h i s d o e s
n o t make Montana a community p r o p e r t y s t a t e . Each c a s e depends
upon i t s own f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h i s c a s e w a r r a n t e d
an equal d i s t r i b u t i o n .
Nor w a s it a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t t o a r r i v e a t a v a l u e of i t s own c h o o s i n g a s t o t h e resi-
d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y , a p p l y i n g i t s own i n f l a t i o n v a l u e t o t h e pur-
c h a s e p r i c e and n o t t h a t o f f e r e d by d e f e n d a n t . Defendant a l s o
a r g u e s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y v a l u e d t h e household goods
and t h e V i r g i n i a l o t s . W e do not agree. There was c o n f l i c t i n g
t e s t i m o n y on e a c h and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e s o l v e d t h i s by g i v -
i n g t h e household goods t o p l a i n t i f f and t h e l o t s t o d e f e n d a n t .
This w a s an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n .
A s f o r t h e alimony, n e i t h e r p a r t y d i s a g r e e s t h a t s u c h
a n award depends upon b a l a n c i n g t h e f i n a n c i a l needs o f o n e p a r t y
and t h e f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y t o pay of t h e o t h e r . Whether o r n o t
d e f e n d a n t c a u s e d p l a i n t i f f t o q u i t c o l l e g e , it i s u n d i s p u t e d
t h a t s h e d i d n o t f i n i s h c o l l e g e and had l i m i t e d v o c a t i o n a l s k i l l s .
A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l p l a i n t i f f had o n l y a f i x e d n e t income o f
$375 p e r month from a s e c r e t a r i a l p o s i t i o n while incurring fixed
monthly l i v i n g e x p e n s e s , e x c l u s i v e o f any house payment, o f $650.
A t t h e same t i m e , d e f e n d a n t had n e t monthly income o f $1,300
from h i s Army p e n s i o n and a n a v e r a g e monthly income o f $1,000 a s
a r e a l e s t a t e salesman. I n l i g h t of t h e s e f a c t s w e f i n d no a b u s e
by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n awarding $500 p e r month alimony t o
plaintiff.
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t h i s Army p e n s i o n i s n o t p r o p e r t y
j o i n t l y a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e and a s s u c h i s n o t s u b j e c t
t o d i v i s i o n whereby p l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d a p o r t i o n . What defend-
a n t f a i l s t o comprehend i s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t made no
p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n o f t h e p e n s i o n b u t d i r e c t e d d e f e n d a n t t o pay
$500 p e r month alimony from t h e p e n s i o n o r " i n l i e u t h e r e o f
from any e a r n i n g s he may a c q u i r e i n e x c e s s o f s a i d r e t i r e m e n t . "
Without a d d r e s s i n g whether t h i s p e n s i o n i s j o i n t l y a c q u i r e d
property s u b j e c t t o property d i v i s i o n , t h e pension i s a source
o f income t o d e f e n d a n t which t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y con-
s i d e r e d i n f i x i n g h i s f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y t o pay alimony a s r e l a t e d
t o t h e f i n a n c i a l needs o f p l a i n t i f f .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s award o f alimony i s n o t based upon
f a u l t by t h e d e f e n d a n t . A s defendant concedes, t h i s Court has
h e l d t h a t it i s p r o p e r t o award alimony when a n a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e
h a s been g r a n t e d t o b o t h p a r t i e s a s was t h e case h e r e . Burns
7
v. Burns, 1 4 5 Mont. 1 , / 4 0 0 P.2d 642; S t e n b e r g v . S t e n b e r g , 1 6 1
Mont. 1 6 4 , 505 P.2d 110. A s s t a t e d i n Burns:
" * * * The b a s i s f o r l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e payment
o f alimony i s t h e g r a n t i n g o f a d i v o r c e a g a i n s t
t h e p e r s o n r e q u i r e d t o pay i t , R.C.M. 1947, B
21-139. * * * "
The d e f e n d a n t s e e k s t o have u s i g n o r e t h i s l a n g u a g e be-
c a u s e t h e d i v o r c e was n o t g r a n t e d upon o n e o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l
f a u l t g r o u n d s , b u t on t h e ground o f " i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s " .
W e r e j e c t h i s argument.
The i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s a p p r o a c h was e s t a b l i s h e d
t o b a s e d i v o r c e upon t h e r e a l i s t i c n o t i o n t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y t o
a broken m a r r i a g e i s t o t a l l y t o blame. By removing t h e f a u l t
c o n c e p t , h i g h l y e m o t i o n a l c o u r t r o o m c o n f r o n t a t i o n s c a n be r e p l a c e d
by a more r a t i o n a l a p p r o a c h t o t h e d i v o r c e p r o c e s s and a v o i d s a s
much u n n e c e s s a r y p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e m o t i o n a l stress t o t h e p a r t i e s
a s possible. Our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 21-139, R.C.M. 1947,
i n Burns i s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . A s l o n g as t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t entered the divorce against both p a r t i e s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
p r o p e r l y awarded alimony t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . W e do n o t b e l i e v e t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o c r e a t e t h e i l l o g i c a l s i t u a t i o n whereby
a p a r t y must e l e c t t o s e e k a d i v o r c e on t h e t r a d i t i o n a l f a u l t
g r o u n d s and b e e l g i b l e f o r alimony, o r waive alimony by p r o c e e d i n g
under t h e modern and e n l i g h t e n e d i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s
approach.
The f i n a l i s s u e r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f
s e c t i o n 21-139, R.C.M. 1947, i s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t
and w e d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r it b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t h a s f a i l e d t o
comply w i t h Rule 38, M.R.App.Civ.P. C l o n t z v . C l o n t z , 166 Mont.
206, 531 P.2d 1003; Grant v . G r a n t , 166 Mont. 229, 531 P.2d 1007.
The d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of a p p e a l i n t h i s a c t i o n
October 1 0 , 1975. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e c o r d was f i l e d on Feb-
r u a r y 2, 1976. N o t i c e of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e was n o t
f i l e d u n t i l September 2, 1976, t h e same d a t e a s t h e f i l i n g of
his reply brief. T h i s d o e s n o t comply w i t h t h e n o t i c e i n w r i t -
i n g o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e a s r e q u i r e d by Rule 38, M.R.
App.Civ.P.
The judgment
Chief J u s t i c e
W concur:
e /
Justices
~ d n .J a c k Shanstrom, D i s t r i c t
~ u d ~ e i,t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r .
s
e /"
h u s t i c e Wesley Castles.