Jones v. Jones

No. 80-171
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1980

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
MAUREEN F. JONES,

Petitioner and Appellant,
-vs-
ALAN R. JONES,

Respondent and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Jefferson,
The Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record :
For Appellant:
Smith Law Firm, Helena, Montana

For Respondent :

Luxan and Murfitt, Helena, Montana
Joscelyn, Honzel & Melby, Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: October 23, 1980

Decided: QEC 7 1980

Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by t h e p e t i t i o n e r from s u p p l e m e n t 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 of d i s s o l u -

t i o n e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l

D i s t r i c t , J e f f e r s o n County, t h e Honorable James D . Freebourn

presiding.
A p p e l l a n t i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g d i s s o l u t i o n of
m a r r i a g e , d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y , a p p o r t i o n m e n t of d e b t s

and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c h i l d c u s t o d y , v i s i t a t i o n and s u p p o r t .

On August 1 3 , 1979, a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n w a s e n t e r e d ; t h e
c o u r t , however, r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on a l l o t h e r i s s u e s .

The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e -

ment on August 6 , 1979, d i s t r i b u t i n g p r o p e r t i e s , a p p o r t i o n -

i n g d e b t s , g r a n t i n g a p p e l l a n t c u s t o d y o f t h e minor c h i l d ,

s e t t i n g v i s i t a t i o n and f i x i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t . On November

1 6 , 1979, r e s p o n d e n t b r o u g h t a motion t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e

agreement i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n a l d e c r e e . A p p e l l a n t , however,

objected t o adoption of t h e v i s i t a t i o n provisions.
A f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e matter, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

e n t e r e d a s u p p l e m e n t a l d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n , i n c o r p o r a t i n g
i n t o t o t h e terms o f t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. In
s u p p o r t of i t s d e c r e e , t h e c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g 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 :
"I. FINDINGS - -
O F FACT

"1. T h a t t h e P r o p e r t y S e t t l e m e n t Agreement
e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e p a r t i e s on o r a b o u t
August 6 , 1979, i s f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e and n o t
u n c o n s c i o n a b l e ; t h a t t h e s a m e makes a d e q u a t e
p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y
of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e a p p o r t i o n m e n t of t h e i r
d e b t s , t h e c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d , c h i l d
s u p p o r t , and v i s i t a t i o n ; and t h a t t h e p r o v i -
s i o n s of s a i d agreement as t o c u s t o d y , c h i l d
s u p p o r t and v i s i t a t i o n a r e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r -
e s t s of t h e c h i l d .
 "2. T h a t t h e same s h o u l d be approved a n d - i n -
corporated i n t h e decree herein.

"11. CONCLUSIONS - -
O LAW
F

"1. T h a t t h e P r o p e r t y S e t t l e m e n t Agreement
made and e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e p a r t i e s i s
f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e and i s n o t u n c o n s c i o n a b l e .

"2. T h a t t h e terms o f s a i d agreement a s t o
c h i l d c u s t o d y , c h i l d s u p p o r t and v i s i t a t i o n
are i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d .

" 3 . T h a t t h e same s h o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o
a decree herein."

A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l :

1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e

p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement w i t h o u t making s p e c i f i c f i n d -

i n g s of f a c t r e g a r d i n g t h e impact of t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i d e d

f o r on t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d ?

2. Is t h e f i n d i n g by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h a t t h e

v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement

a r e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d , c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s and

u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ?

3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g t o p e r m i t

e x a m i n a t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t ' s a t t o r n e y ?

Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P., provides t h a t i n a l l a c t i o n s t r i e d

upon t h e f a c t s w i t h o u t a j u r y t h e c o u r t i s under a n o b l i g a -

t i o n t o i s s u 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 . The

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

f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. M a r r i a g e of Barren

(1978) , Mont. , 580 P.2d 936, 35 St.Rep. 891.
T h i s f o u n d a t i o n need n o t c o n s i s t of a m u l t i t u d e of

e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t s , b u t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t must s e t f o r t h a

r e c o r d a t i o n of t h e e s s e n t i a l and d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t s upon

which t h e c o u r t r e s t e d i t s c o n c l u s i o n s of law and w i t h o u t

which t h e judgment would l a c k s u p p o r t . See M a r r i a g e of

Barron, supra.
 S e c t i o n 40-4-217, MCA, r e l a t e s t o v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s and

i m p l i e s a s t a n d a r d t h a t t h e s e r i g h t s be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e

b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d . To a s s u r e t h a t t h i s s t a n d a r d

i s complied w i t h , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t

examine a l l p e r t i n e n t and r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s p r e s e n t e d a t

trial.

I n t h i s instance, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered a f i n d i n g

of f a c t and a c o n c l u s i o n of law t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i -

s i o n i n t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement was i n t h e " b e s t

i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . " The c o u r t i n s o d o i n g , however,

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

d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t s upon which i t r e s t e d i t s c o n c l u s i o n .

Adequate f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e e s s e n t i a l f o r

w i t h o u t them t h i s C o u r t i s f o r c e d t o s p e c u l a t e a s t o t h e

reasons f o r the District Court's decision. Such a s i t u a t i o n

i s n o t a h e a l t h y b a s i s f o r review. E s t a t e of Craddock

( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 8 , 11, 566 P.2d 45, 46.

W acknowledge t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t need o n l y s e t
e

f o r t h t h e ultimate f a c t s a s a foundation f o r i t s conclusions

of law. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h i s c a s e , however, f a i l e d t o

s e t f o r t h any s u p p o r t i n g f a c t s and m e r e l y made a c o n c l u s o r y

s t a t e m e n t w i t h no r e f l e c t i o n a t a l l a s t o t h e e v i d e n t i a r y

basis f o r its decision.

I n t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s do n o t r e f l e c t t h o s e f a c t o r s upon

which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t based i t s c o n c l u s i o n - - t h a t the

p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement, a s t o v i s i t a t i o n , i s i n t h e
b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e child--we c a n n o t p r o c e e d on t h e a p p e l -

l a t e l e v e l t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n .
With t h i s b e i n g t h e c a s e , t h i s p r o c e e d i n g must be r e t u r n e d

t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e purpose of making t h e r e q u i r e d

f a c t u a l findings.
 A s t o t h e o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y of Mark Murphy, r e s p o n -

d e n t ' s f i r s t a t t o r n e y i n t h i s a c t i o n (who l a t e r w i t h d r e w ) ,

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e d t o a l l o w h i s e x a m i n a t i o n on t h e

b a s i s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y s o u g h t was p r o t e c t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y -

c l i e n t privilege.

A p p e l l a n t s o u g h t t o adduce t e s t i m o n y from Murphy a s t o

various matters, including h i s observations t h a t respondent

made d i s p l a y s of temper d i r e c t e d a t and i n t h e p r e s e n c e of

a p p e l l a n t and t h e minor c h i l d .

The a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e , s e c t i o n 26-1-803, MCA,

p r o t e c t s communications made by t h e c l i e n t i n t h e c o u r s e of

the professional relationship. I f a s t a t e m e n t i s made t o a

number of p e r s o n s o r w i t h i n t h e i r h e a r i n g , however, i t i s

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

v . Montana Bank and T r u s t Co. ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 109 Mont. 477, 500, 98

P.2d 377, 388; see a l s o S t a t e v. Wilder ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 2 Wash.App.

296, 529 P.2d 1109; F i s h e r v . M r . H a r o l d ' s H a i r Lab, I n c .

( 1 9 7 4 ) , 215 Kan. 515, 527 P.2d 1026; Nevada Tax Commission

v . Hicks ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 73 Nev. 115, 310 P.2d 852; Anderson v .

Thomas ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 108 Utah 252, 159 P.2d 142; Ver Bryck v . Luby

( 1 9 4 5 ) , 67 Cal.App.2d 842, 155 P.2d 706.

I n t h i s c a s e , t h a t t e s t i m o n y of Murphy, which r e l a t e s

t o c o n v e r s a t i o n s and m a t t e r s o c c u r r i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e of
Murphy, r e s p o n d e n t , and a t h i r d p e r s o n , i s n o t p r i v i l e g e d .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n e x c l u d i n g i t .

The d e c r e e o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s v a c a t e d as i t

relates to visitation rights. The c a s e i s remanded f o r

a n o t h e r h e a r i n g , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r

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

opinion.

,
,' Justice
We concur:

%9 @&g
&. -#
Chief Justice

C1yd-a
/j Justices '
,