No. 13148
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1976
ANNE ROGERS,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs -
JULIAN ROGERS,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R. J. Nelson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For A p p e l l a n t :
Smith, Emmons, B a i l l i e and Walsh, G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
R o b e r t J. Emmons a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
For Respondent :
D z i v i , C o n k l i n , Johnson and Nybo, G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
Louis D. Nybo a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: March 8 , 1976
Decided :
k!AR 2 5 1976
Filed: 1, 5 1976
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the
Court.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the district
court, Cascade County. Plaintiff-wife filed an action seeking
separate maintenance and alimony. Defendant-husband answered
and counterclaimed requesting a divorce. The court granted de-
fendant a divorce, denied alimony, but awarded plaintiff a judg-
ment for the sum of $23,500, plus interest from the date of the
separation. Defendant appeals seeking a reversal of the money
judgment .
Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1967 and no
children were born of this marriage. Plaintiff had been previous-
ly married, was divorced, and had the custody of three children
of that marriage. She received $250 per month per child for the
support of the children who were 8, 10 and 11 years old at the
time their parents were divorced. As a result of the property
settlement from her former husband, plaintiff had a net worth of
approximately $70,000 consisting principally of stocks.
Defendant-husband was a widower with five children, all
were older than plaintiff's children. Following the marriage,
plaintiff's three children moved to Montana to live with them at
defendant's ranch. Also, during the marriage at least three of
defendant's children were at the ranch home.
Defendant's ranch consists of some 3,800 acres and his
net worth at the time of the trial was approximately $800,000.
The trial court found that though there was no formal agreement
or understanding between plaintiff and defendant with regard to
the children's support money, it is not disputed that during
the marriage plaintiff deposited that money into a checking
account, together with the income from her stocks, amounting to
approximately $3,000 per year, and from the account she ran the
family household. During the marriage she paid for all groceries
e x c e p t meat, medical expenses, c a r p e t i n g , a n automobile, i t s
r e p a i r s , l i c e n s i n g and t a x e s , d r u g s t o r e b i l l s , c l o t h i n g , t r i p s ,
C h r i s t m a s g i f t s , and m i s c e l l a n e o u s h o u s e h o l d e x p e n d i t u r e s . Dur-
i n g t h e m a r r i a g e d e f e n d a n t g a v e p l a i n t i f f no money f o r h e r
s u p p o r t , n o r d i d h e make any d e p o s i t s i n p l a i n t i f f ' s h o u s e h o l d
checking account. For f i v e y e a r s he had a w i f e , a homemaker, a
companion, and a p r o v i d e r f o r t h a t home a t no c o s t t o him.
The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t d u r i n g t h e t i m e p l a i n t i f f
m a i n t a i n e d t h e household c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t s h e made d e p o s i t s i n
t h e amount o f $55,802.42. A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a number o f d e d u c t i o n s
which t h e c o u r t found w e r e o f b e n e f i t t o p l a i n t i f f o r h e r c h i l d -
r e n , t h e c o u r t found p l a i n t i f f had s p e n t i n t h e way o f f a m i l y
c o n t r i b u t i o n s t h e sum o f $40,012.94. While g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t
t h e d i v o r c e , and r e f u s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s r e q u e s t f o r a l i m o n y , t h e
t r i a l c o u r t d i d f i n d p l a i n t i f f - w i f e was e n t i t l e d t o a judgment
a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t f o r a s s e t s s h e expended f o r t h e e n t i r e f a m i l y ' s
b e n e f i t and f o r h e r s e r v i c e s a s a w i f e and m o t h e r , i n t h e sum o f
$23,500 p l u s i n t e r e s t a t s i x p e r c e n t from May 31, 1973.
On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t - h u s b a n d a l l e g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t
erred :
(1) I n awarding a judgment f o r $23,500 on t h e f a c t s o f
t h e c a s e , and i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e o f s e p a r a t i o n .
( 2 ) I n i t s award o f $934 r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e amount t e n d e r e d
by d e f e n d a n t t o p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e f u r n i t u r e and t h e l i k e l e f t
a t t h e r a n c h , and f o r i n t e r e s t on s u c h amount.
W e f i n d no m e r i t i n a p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t i s s u e . An e f f o r t
i s made t o a t t a c k t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e award by a r g u i n g
t h a t i t i s alimony and t h e r e f o r e a s e r i o u s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n
arises. The c a s e was f i l e d b e f o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e 1972
Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . A p p e l l a n t c a n n o t r e l y on r i g h t s a r i s i n g
u n d e r A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , f o r u n d e r
t h e T r a n s i t i o n S c h e d u l e S e c t i o n 3 any " r i g h t s , p r o c e d u r a l o r
substantive, created for the f i r s t t i m e * * * s h a l l be p r o s p e c t i v e
and n o t r e t r o a c t i v e . " C l o n t z v . C l o n t z , 166 Mont. 206, 531 P.2d
The p r i n c i p a l a t t a c k of t h e i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o whether
t h e r e were s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d -
on
i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. A p p e l l a n t r e l i e d a n d a r g u e s e a r l y
c a s e s of t h i s C o u r t c o n c e r n i n g whether o r n o t a housewife i s
e n t i t l e d t o reimbursement o r damages i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n . Such
a u t h o r i t y i s c l e a r l y a n a c h r o n i s t i c i n view of t h e modern a p p r o a c h
t o d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s l i t i g a t i o n which t h i s C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d
and which Montana's l e g i s l a t u r e h a s f o l l o w e d by a d o p t i n g t h e
Uniform M a r r i a g e and Divorce A c t , C h a p t e r 3 , T i t l e 48, R.C.M.
1947. T h a t A c t a t t e m p t s t o d o away w i t h a l l of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e
views and p r o c e d u r e s i n o r d e r t o a c c o m p l i s h what i s i n t h e b e s t
i n t e r e s t s of n o t o n l y t h e c h i l d r e n , i f a n y , b u t t h e husband o r
w i f e w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e t y p e o f r e l i e f t h e husband and w i f e
may be s e e k i n g . Tolson v . T o l s o n , 145 Mont. 8 7 , 399 P.2d 754;
Bloom v . Bloom, 150 Mont. 511, 437 P.2d 1; Hodgson v . Hodgson,
156 Mont. 469, 482 P.2d 140; L i b r a v . L i b r a , 157 Mont. 252, 484
H e r e t h e r e c o r d abounds w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l u n c o n t r o v e r t e d
e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e f i s c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of r e s p o n d e n t made
d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , which s u p p o r t s h e r c l a i m . W e w i l l n o t hand-
c u f f t h e t r i a l c o u r t by n o t a l l o w i n g it t o make a n award it f i n d s
e q u i t a b l e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e . A d m i t t e d l y it
w a s d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t and would have been f o r t h i s
C o u r t , t o a r r i v e a t a n e x a c t f i g u r e t o compensate r e s p o n d e n t .
However, s h e d i d c o n t r i b u t e i n e x c e s s of $40,000 d u r i n g t h e s i x
y e a r s o f m a r r i a g e and t h e f i n a l award amounts t o l e s s t h a n $4,000
per year. I n view of t h e f a c t a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s
c o n t r i b u t i o n went t o t h e b e n e f i t o f a p p e l l a n t and h i s c h i l d r e n ,
t h u s f r e e i n g a p p e l l a n t of t h a t f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , 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 t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and con-
c l u s i o n s o f law.
A s t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f i n t e r e s t on t h e judgment, appel-
l a n t a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 17-204, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , i s a p p l i c a b l e and
i n t e r e s t c a n b e awarded from a d a t e p r i o r t o judgment o n l y when
t h e damages a r e c e r t a i n o r c a n be made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n .
H e c i t e s i n s u p p o r t E s k e s t r a n d v . Wunder, 94 Mont. 5 7 , 20 P.2d
622.
S e c t i o n 17-204, R.C.M. 1947, r e l a t e s o n l y t o damages
and t h e award made h e r e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t f o r damages.
R a t h e r , i t i s a n e q u i t a b l e amount awarded on r e i m b u r s e m e n t .
I n t e r e s t was awarded from t h e f i l i n g o f t h e c l a i m and e v e n though
t h e c l a i m was u n l i q u i d a t e d u n t i l t h e c o u r t r e d u c e d it t o t h e
amount o f t h e award, w e c a n f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n a l l o w -
i n g t h e award o f i n t e r e s t t o s t a n d from t h e d a t e g r a n t e d , con-
s i d e r i n g t h e f a c t it i s b a s e d upon a c a s h o u t l a y made by r e s p o n d -
ent t h a t d i r e c t l y benefited appellant.
A s c o n c e r n s t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e $934.34, t h e amount
a p p e l l a n t p a i d by c h e c k t o r e s p o n d e n t f o r t h e f u r n i t u r e , e t a l ,
l e f t by h e r a t t h e r a n c h , l a t e r r e t u r n e d t o a p p e l l a n t on a d v i c e
of counsel, t h e i n t e r e s t should n o t begin t o run u n t i l t h e d a t e
o f t h e judgment. Kovash v . K n i g h t , Mont . 1 54.5 P - 2 d 10911
3 3 St.Rep. 159.
Judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . The c a u s e
i s remanded t o t h a t c o u r t f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n .
/-
Hon. A r t h u r M a r t i n ,
s i t t i n g i n place of
James Har7n. %----
- --- ----- -------------
A
Jastices
- 5 -
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell s p e c i a l l y concurring:
I concur i n t h e r e s u l t .
Justice.