No. 14624
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
JOYCE M. MABERRY,
Petitioner and Respondent,
-VS-
RAY G. MABERRY,
Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
John M. McCarvel, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Marra, Wenz, Iwen and Johnson, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on briefs: June 29, 1979
Decided : A U G 13 1919
Filed: . , I
G1.,'C
-S
:3
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by r e s p o n d e n t ( h u s b a n d ) from t h e d e c r e e
o f d i v o r c e and d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e and d e n i a l o f
a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County o f Cascade.
The p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d o v e r 20 y e a r s ago and a t t h e
t i m e o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e had l i t t l e o r no a s s e t s . Three c h i l d r e n
w e r e b o r n of t h e m a r r i a g e : Donna, now 2 1 y e a r s o l d ; ~ i m o t h y ,
now 1 8 y e a r s of a g e ; and Thomas, now 1 7 y e a r s of a g e and re-
s i d i n g away from b o t h p a r e n t s . Timothy h a s a l e a r n i n g d i s -
a b i l i t y , i s b o r d e r l i n e r e t a r d e d and h a s p e t i t mal e p i l e p s y
and r e s i d e s w i t h h i s mother. P e t i t i o n e r (wife) i s 4 1 years
o l d and h a s been a f u l l - t i m e h o u s e w i f e s i n c e 1957. She i s i n
good h e a l t h and h a s done p a r t - t i m e work s i n c e t h e p a r t i e s
s e p a r a t e d i n 1977, w i t h a v e r a g e e a r n i n g s o f $148 p e r month.
Respondent i s 4 3 y e a r s o l d , a b l e - b o d i e d , h a s worked s t e a d i l y
f o r 20 y e a r s a s a c a r p e n t e r and h a s been s e l f - e m p l o y e d s i n c e
1977. H i s e a r n i n g s have s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s e d , and from D e c e m -
b e r 1 5 , 1977, t o May 1 5 , 1978 ( f i v e m o n t h s ) , h i s e a r n i n g s
w e r e $18,018 w i t h b u s i n e s s e x p e n s e s of a b o u t $4,120. All
p r o p e r t y o f t h e p a r t i e s h a s been a c c u m u l a t e d d u r i n g t h e mar-
riage.
The a s s e t s o f t h e p a r t i e s c o n s i s t o f :
Real: Home i n G r e a t F a l l s v a l u e d a t $62,000, minus a
mortgage o f $9,941.08; c a b i n a t L i n c o l n , Montana, v a l u e d a t
$45,000 w i t h no l i e n s t h e r e o n .
P e r s o n a l : 1976 Ford Granada, l i e n $2,251.26; 1975 Ford
3/4 t o n p i c k u p , l i e n $ 1 , 5 0 0 ; t h r e e snowmobiles; two p o o l
t a b l e s ; and, a b o a t .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found:
1. The b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d under t h e d i s a b i l i t y ,
Timothy, would b e s e r v e d i n h i s m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y w i t h r e a -
sonable v i s i t a t i o n remaining i n respondent.
2. P e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d t o $300 maintenance f o r a
p e r i o d o f two y e a r s t o r e a d j u s t back i n t o t h e l a b o r m a r k e t .
3. Respondent s h o u l d pay $100 p e r month f o r t h e c a r e
and s u p p o r t of Timothy t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l r e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l ,
d o c t o r , h o s p i t a l , d e n t a l , and o p t i c a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d o n
b e h a l f of Timothy u n t i l he becomes s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g .
4. The e x c l u s i v e u s e of t h e G r e a t F a l l s home t o p e t i -
t i o n e r and s h e must pay t a x e s , i n s u r a n c e , e t c . Respondent i s
t o make t h e $200 a month payment u n t i l Timothy l e a v e s t h e
residence. The r e s i d e n c e s h o u l d t h e n be s o l d and t h e n e t s a l e s
p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between t h e p a r t i e s e x c e p t t h a t re-
s p o n d e n t may d e d u c t $100 o r one-half of t h e monthly payments
p a i d by him on b e h a l f o f p e t i t i o n e r u n t i l t h e d a t e of s a l e ,
b e f o r e t h e n e t d i v i s i o n between t h e p a r t i e s . The c a b i n a t
L i n c o l n i s t o be s o l d and t h e n e t p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y
between t h e p a r t i e s .
5. The Ford Granada s h o u l d go t o p e t i t i o n e r and t h e
p i c k u p t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t , e a c h t o make t h e payments o n t h e
b a l a n c e due on t h e i r v e h i c l e .
6. One snowmobile w a s g i v e n t o p e t i t i o n e r and two snow-
mobiles t o respondent. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e two p o o l t a b l e s and
b o a t went t o r e s p o n d e n t .
7. Each p a r t y was t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r n e y f e e s and
costs.
The husband p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w by t h i s
Court:
1. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t r e s p o n -
d e n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l ?
2. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n o r d e r i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t
payments t o b e p a i d by r e s p o n d e n t when no minor c h i l d re-
s i d e s with p e t i t i o n e r ?
3. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a
n e t w o r t h of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e p r i o r t o g r a n t i n g main-
tenance t o p e t i t i o n e r ?
The motion f o r new t r i a l was p r o p e r l y d e n i e d by t h e
trial court. S e c t i o n 25-11-103, MCA. This s e c t i o n requires
d e m o n s t r a t i o n of grounds s e t f o r t h i n s u b s e c t i o n s ( I ) , ( 3 ) ,
and ( 4 ) of s e c t i o n 25-11-102, MCA. This standard has n o t
been p l e a d e d o r proved i n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t .
I t i s p u b l i c p o l i c y i n Montana t o r e q u i r e p a r e n t s t o
c a r e f o r c h i l d r e n who a r e s u f f e r i n g from d i s a b i l i t y and
u n a b l e t o c a r e f o r t h e m s e l v e s i f t h e p a r e n t s a r e a b l e t o do
so. S e e a l s o s e c t i o n 40-4-204, MCA. There a r e a l s o numer-
ous treatises supporting t h i s p o s i t i o n . The Uniform Mar-
r i a g e and Divorce A c t a d o p t e d i n Montana s u p p o r t s t h i s
position.
There i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t
d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h e n e t worth o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e p r i o r
t o g r a n t i n g maintenance t o p e t i t i o n e r .
F i n d i n g no e r r o r o r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n , t h e judgment
of t h e t r i a l court i s affirmed.
We concur:
Chief justice
% %4/Justices
Q?.