No. 81-376
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RODNEY LASTER, Petitioner and Appellant, and JUNE M. LASTER, Respondent and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Boscher and Boschert, Billings, Montana Alan J. Lerner argued, Big Fork, Montana
-
For Respondent:
Berger, Sinclair and Nelson, Billings, Montana James J. Sinclair argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: January 13, 1982 Decided :
APR 15!!I ?$ iara $ 5 1992 Filed:
$ )&J',l-
/ Clerk
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 Court.
The h u s b a n d , Rodney Laster, a p p e a l s from a judgment entered by the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Y e l l o w s t o n e County, i n which t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e was dissolved, the marital estate divided, and the wife a w a r d e d $ 3 5 0 p e r month i n maintenance, a s well a s attorney f e e s and c o s t s .
The L a s t e r s w e r e m a r r i e d f o r t w e n t y - n i n e years. They had t h r e e c h i l d r e n , two a r e now a d u l t s . The t h i r d c h i l d was severely disabled, b o t h p h y s i c a l l y and m e n t a l l y , requiring total care. The w i f e q u i t h e r s e c r e t a r i a l job i n 1956 t o c a r e f o r h e r d i s a b l e d c h i l d , who l i v e d t o t h e a g e o f t e n .
The h u s b a n d and w i f e separated in April 1979. The h u s b a n d moved to Montana i n December 1979 w h i l e the wife stayed i n Pennsylvania.
After t h e i r separation the wife obtained a job a s a f l o o r l a d y i n a garment shop. S h e i s now f i f t y - e i g h t years o l d , and h e r g r o s s s a l a r y is $406.20 e v e r y two w e e k s .
The District Court determined that the wife's net s a l a r y i s $ 3 0 8 e v e r y o t h e r week. In arriving a t t h i s figure t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b t r a c t e d from t h e g r o s s s a l a r y a l l o f the itemized deductions (federal, state and local taxes, s o c i a l s e c u r i t y and u n i o n d u e s ) t a k e n o u t o f t h e w i f e ' s b i - weekly pay check. By m u l t i p l y i n g $ 3 8 8 t i m e s t w e n t y - s i x pay periods, and dividing by twelve, t h e District Court found t h a t t h e w i f e ' s a v e r a g e m o n t h l y s p e n d a b l e incorne i s $ 6 6 7 .
The District Court found that the wife's monthly e x p e n s e s t o t a l $806. To s u p p l e m e n t h e r i n c o m e , t h e w i f e h a s rented a mobile home owned by the parties for $165 per month.
The w i f e i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r f u l l r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s since s h e began her job a f t e r t h e age of fifty-f ive. She will receive a small pension of $33.60 per month if she works u n t i l s h e is s i x t y - s e v e n .
The h u s b a n d i s f i f t y - o n e years old. He has n ~ u l t i p l e s c l e r o s i s b u t i t is i n r e m i s s i o n a n d t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o n t h e r e c o r d t h a t i t i m p a i r s h i s a b i l i t y t o work. The h u s b a n d p r e s e n t l y works f o r t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a s a n OSHA com- p l i a n c e o f f i c e r i n B i l l i n g s , Montana.
The husband's gross income was $27,854 in 1981, $25,608 i n 1980. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t i n 1 9 8 0 t h e husband's spendable income was $1,865 per month. The D i s t r i c t Court a r r i v e d a t t h i s f i g u r e by d e d u c t i n g o n l y t h e federal taxes from t h e h u s b a n d ' s g r o s s income and d i v i d i n g by twelve. Unlike its determination of t h e w i f e ' s monthly spendable income, the District Court did not look to the monthly d e d u c t i o n s t a k e n o u t of t h e h u s b a n d ' s paycheck. The District Court also found that the husband's fiancee c o n t r i b u t e s $100 p e r week a n d t h i s a d d i t i o n a l i n c o m e would serve t o o f f s e t f u t u r e l i v i n g expenses.
In addition t o supporting himself, t h e husband sup-
p o r t s h i s f i a n c e e and h i s f i a n c e e ' s d a u g h t e r . H i s monthly expenses were found to be $1,535 per month. Taking the $1,865 spendable income and subtracting the $1,535 in e x p e n s e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was a b l e t o p a y o v e r $300 i n m a i n t e n a n c e t o t h e w i f e .
The h u s b a n d h a s t h r e e r e t i r e m e n t p r o g r a m s , two v e s t e d b u t n o t m a t u r e d and o n e n o t v e s t e d . A l l of t h e payments o f t h e f i r s t two p l a n s were made d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' marriage. Under the first plan, the husband will receive $750 per inonth when he r e a c h e s t h e a g e o f sixty. Under the second plan, the husband will receive $304 per month when he reaches the age of fifty-nine. The husband is p r e s e n t l y contributing to a third plan which will vest in approxi- mately f i v e years.
Excluding the value of the husband's retirement benefits, the District Court valued the marital assets a t $73,580, l i a b i l i t i e s a t $18,359.27, and n e t m a r i t a l estate a t $55,220.73. The m a j o r d i s p u t e d v a l u a t i o n s a r e t h e f a m i l y home in Pennsylvania and the jewelry acquired during the marriage. E v i d e n c e of t h e s e v a l u a t i o n s was i n d e f i n i t e s i n c e a p p r a i s a l f i g u r e s were b a s e d m o s t l y on t h e p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s of the parties, formed t h r o u g h informal inquiries or reli- a n c e on amounts o f i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e .
Except for the retirement benefits, the District C o u r t d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 78% t o t h e w i f e and 2 2 % t o t h e h u s b a n d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t l i s t e d i t s r e a s o n s f o r s u c h a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n stat:.ng that for the past three years the wife has been solely r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s o n t h e f a m i l y home and ten-acre tract. This, coupled with t h e l e n g t h of t h e mar- ridge, t h e d e v o t i o n of t h e w i f e t o t h e c a r e of h e r d i s a b l e d c h i l d , t h e w i f e ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o u n d e r t a k e employment a t t h e age of fifty-six y e a r s and t h e d i s p a r i t y of earning capa- bilities, justified the distribution. To equalize this disproportionate distribution, the District Court awarded t h e wife a one-third s h a r e i n e a c h of t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e - inent p l a n s r a t h e r t h a n t h e o n e - h a l f share she requested.
After considering the nature of the property involved, i n t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y awarded t o t h e w i f e was n o t income produciny but incoiae reducing, the ~ i s t r i c tCourt found there was not sufficient property in the marital e s t a t e t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e r e d s o n a b l e n e e d s of t h e w i f e . The District Court further found that the husband was finan- c i a l l y a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e $350 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e w i f e and awarded h e r t h a t amount u n t i l h e r d e a t h , u n t i l s h e remarries, o r u n t i l t h e husband r e t i r e s .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r awarded t h e w i f e $541 f o r h e r e x p e n s e s o f t r a v e l i n g t o Montana and s t a y i n g h e r e d u r i n g the t r i a l . Finally, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e did not have sufficient funds to pay attorney fees and ordered the husband to pay $1,050 in reasonable attorney fees.
Four b a s i c i s s u e s h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i 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 e q u i t a b l e apportionment of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ?
2. Whether the District Court erred in awarding maintenance t o t h e wife?
3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e wife a p o r t i o n of t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s ?
4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s t o t h e w i f e ?
The husband r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e basic four:
1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by c o n s i d e r i n g the income o f the husband's f i a n c e e i n awarding maintenance t o t h e wife.
2. Whether the husband's r i g h t t o equal protection was v i o l a t e d by a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a s h a r e o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t benef its.
3. Whether the District Court's judgment is a n u l l i t y s i n c e it d i d n o t s t a t e i n its f i n d i n g s of f a c t s t h a t the m a r r i a g e was irretrievably broken or that one of the p a r t i e s was d o m i c i l e d i n M o n t a n a .
The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d its discretion because a 78%-22% p r o p e r t y distribution is p e r se i n e q u i t a b l e and b e c a u s e t h e v a l u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p l a c e d o n t h e m a i n m a r i t a l a s s e t s w e r e b a s e d on s p e c u l a t i v e and incompetent e v i d e n c e . I t should be noted t h a t t h e 78%- 22% p r o p o r t i o n does not include consideration of the Dis- t r i c t Court's division of the husband's retirement benefits and is t h e r e f o r e m i s l e a d i n g .
In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion, the standard for review is w h e t h e r the trial c o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice. I n re t h e Marriage o f Creon (1981), - Mont . -, 6 3 5 P.2d 1308, 38 St.Rep. 1828; I n r e Mar- r i a g e of Martens ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 6 3 7 P.2d 523, 38
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d u t y u n d e r s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), MCA, is t o c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t o r s t h e r e i n a n d t h e n d i v i d e t h e property equitably. An e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n d o e s n o t n e c e s - s a r i l y mean a n e q u a l d i v i s i o n . A s h a s b e e n n o t e d many t i m e s by t h i s C o u r t , and most r e c e n t l y i n M a r t e n s :
" ' A l t h o u g h - D i s t r i c t C o u r t -may e q u a l l y the ---
divide the marital assets, such a distribut i o n i s n o t m a n d a t e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA . . .
~-~ S e c t i o n 40-4-202 i s f l e x i b l e and i t v e s t s a good d e a l 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 Court ... W e h a v e s t a t e d , b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e adoption of the s t a t u t e , t h a t each c a s e must be looked a t i n d i v i d u a l l y , w i t h an eye t o its unique circumstances .. .' ( C i t a -
t i o n s omitted.) I n R e M a r r i a g e o f Aanenson
In Finding of F a c t No. 17, the District Court gave extensive reasons for giving the wife 78% of the marital property: t h e w i f e h a s been s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r mortgage payments on t h e f a m i l y home s i n c e 1 9 7 9 , t h e l e n g t h o f the marriage, t h e devotion of t h e wife t o her disabled c h i l d , and t h e g r e a t d i s p a r i t y i n e a r n i n g c a p a b i l i t y . The D i s t r i c t Court recognized that the wife was receiving an unusually l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and t o e q u a l i z e t h e s i t u a t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t award t h e w i f e a s much of the retirement benefits as s h e had requested. If the d i v i s i o n of retirement benefits is c o n s i d e r e d , t h e wife in a c t u a l i t y i s r e c e i v i n g l e s s t h a n 78% o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . C l e a r l y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court considered t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, and used v e r y c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment i n d i s t r i b u t i n g the property.
The husband n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e t o p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e the marital estate. While i t is t r u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t g i v e n t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e on which t o b a s e i t s v a l u a - tions, the D i s t r i c t Court's determinations of values will stand unless they are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.H.Civ.P.; In re Marriage of Creon, supra. There is nothing in the record to show that its valuations were c l e a r l y erroneous.
A D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award o f m a i n t e n a n c e must b e made i n accordance with the factors set forth in s e c t i o n 40-4- 2 8 3 , MCA. I t is w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a spouse seeking maintenance " l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t property" t o provide for her need, "sufficient property" means income producing, not income consuming , property. See section 40-4-203(l)(a), MCA; In re the Marriage of Herron (1980), - Mont. , 6 0 8 P.2d 97, 37 S t . R e p . 387; I n r e t h e Mar-
riage of Bowman (1981), - Mont. -, 6 3 3 P.2d 1198, 38 St.Rep. 1515.
Here, the District Court carefully considered the n a t u r e of the property involved and the factors listed in section 40-4-203, MCA. The District Court found that no matter how favorable the property distribution was to the wife, such a d i s t r i b u t i o n cannot substitute completely for maintenance.
While we agree that the wife requires some main-
tenance, it must be noted t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court improperly calculated the husband's monthly spendable income. The District Court looked only to the federal taxes deducted from t h e h u s b a n d ' s monthly paycheck. It failed to consider other deductions, such a s s t a t e taxes, r e t i r e m e n t payments, h e a l t h and l i f e i n s u r a n c e payments and u n i o n d u e s , i n d e t e r - mining t h e husband's monthly spendable income. This error is n o t c a u s e f o r remand, however, s i n c e t h e husband is s t i l l a b l e t o p a y $350 p e r month i n m a i n t e n a n c e .
Under section 40-4-203(2)(f), MCA, the District Court, in determining t h e arnount o f m a i n t e n a n c e , must con- s i d e r t h e f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y o f t h e spouse paying maintenance t o m e e t h i s own n e e d s w h i l e m e e t i n g t h e n e e d s o f h i s s p o u s e . When the husband's monthly deductions are subtracted from the figures used by the District Court, the husband's rnonthly s p e n d a b l e incorne seems t o be $300 less per month than originally calculated. Nevertheless, t h e husband h a s incorne w h i c h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t u s e in determining his s p e n d a b l e ~ n o n t h l y income--namely, the c o n t r i b u t i o n s by his fiancee, his tax rebate, and the rental fee for his m o b i l e home. Taking into consideration t h e $401if p e r month c o n t r i b u t e d by t h e h u s b a n d ' s f i a n c e e , t h e $1,286 t a x r e f u n d r e c e i v e d by t h e h u s b a n d , and t h e $165 p e r month rental fee for the mobile home, it is apparent that the husband is s t i l l a b l e t o pay t h e $350 p e r month i n maintenance. The District Court's miscalculation is, therefore, harmless error.
The husband contends that under Duffey v. Duffey (1981) - Mont . -, 631 P.2d 697, 38 St.Rep. 1105, t h e income of the husband's fiancee cannot be used in deter- m i n i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s a b i l i t y t o pay.
Duffey is not on point here. It deals with the c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a p r e s e n t w i f e ' s income i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e husband t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t .
This Court has p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d and a p p r o v e d a trial court's c a l c u l a t i o n of "family" net income based on t h e e a r n i n g s of t h e husband and h i s f u t u r e w i f e . T h i s f i g u r e was used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e f u t u r e a b i l i t y o f t h e husband to pay m a i n t e n a n c e . See, I n t h e M a r r i a g e o f Cromwell (1979),
1 8 0 Mont. 40, 588 P.2d 1010. W s e e no r e a s o n n o t t o f o l l o w
e
t h e Cromwell c a s e . The income o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s f i a n c e e may, t i ~ e r e f o r e , be u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e h u s b a n d ' s future finan- cial status.
The husband also contends that the District Court e r r e d by a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e $ 1 , 0 5 0 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and $541 in costs.
Under section 40-4-110, MCA, a District Court is given discretion to award a reasonable amount in attorney fees and costs incurred prior to cornmencernent of a pro- ceeding and after entry of judgment. In Wilson v . Bean ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 628 P.2d 287, 38 S t . R e p . 7 5 1 , we s e t down t h e s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w i n g t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s :
" I n o r d e r t o be awarded f e e s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, t h e p e t i t i o n i n g p a r t y nus st make a showing of n e c e s s i t y . . .
The
award m u s t be r e a s o n a b l e , and m u s t be b a s e d on c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e . .. Reasonableness is shown by means o f a h e a r i n g a l l o w i n g f o r o r a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e x h i b i t s , and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine.
award w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d by t h i s C o u r t i f . .
The
i t is s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . . ."
(Citations omitted.) 628 P.2d a t 289.
Here, t e s t i m o n y was p r e s e n t e d and n e c e s s i t y shown f o r the award o f attorney fees. An uncontested a f f i d a v i t was submitted showing the costs the wife incurred when she traveled to Montana to contest this case. The District Court's award of attorney fees and costs is, therefore, s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d .
The husband contends next that the District Court e r r e d by a w a r d i n g t o t h e w i f e o n e - t h i r d o f t h e b e n e f i t s from each of t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t p l a n s . The husband c l a i m s t h a t s u c h an award is an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e large amount of property distributed to the wife and in light of the amount of m a i n t e n a n c e awarded. The h u s b a n d a l s o contends t h a t by awarding the wife a portion of his retirement benefits, t h e D i s t r i c t Court v i o l a t e d his right t o e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n under t h e laws.
The District Court's award of retirement benefits c a n n o t i n i t s e l f be c o n s i d e r e d u n f a i r . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t explicitly stated that maintenance would discontinue when t h e nusband r e t i r e s . In l i g h t of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u p p o r t i n g an award o f m a i n t e n a n c e h e r e , the s u b s t i t u t i n g of a p o r t i o n of retirement benefits f o r n a i n t e n a n c e c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n .
The husband's equal protection argument lacks any merit since i t was n o t raised at trial and s i n c e t h e r e is no "plain error" in the distribution of the retirement benefits. See, Easton v. E a s t o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. 416, 574 P.2d 989, and Halldorson v. Halldorson (1977), 1 7 5 IJIont. 170, 573 P.2d 169. The husband's argument also fails b e c a u s e no c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was c r e a t e d a s h e c o n t e n d s .
The husband claims that two recent Supreme Court cases s e t up a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n "which d i s c r i m i n a t e s in its application to divorce settlements against persons whose retirements are not under the Federal Railroad Retirement Act or from the Military." See, Hisquierdo v, Hisquierdo ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 439 U,S. 5 7 2 , 99 S . C t . 8 0 2 , 59 L.Ed.2d 1; McCarty v . McCarty ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 49 U.S.L.W. 4850; f o r Montana's recognition of McCarty see, In re t h e Marriage of McGill (1981), - Mont . , 637 P.2d 1 1 8 2 , 38 St.Rep. 2105.
Quite simply, neither Hisquierdo nor McCarty gave rise to such a classification. These cases were merely construing federal statutes and discerning the intent of Congress i n enacting those s p e c i f i c r e t i r e m e n t plans. These c a s e s had no e f f e c t on a n y p r i v a t e o r o t h e r f e d e r a l r e t i r e - ment p l a n s . The h u s b a n d is a r g u i n g a p p l e s and o r a n g e s .
It i s we11 established in this state and in most other states that, a s a general rule, retirement benefits
a r e p a r t of the marital estate. For l i s t o f cases, s e e 94 /.) k
A.L.R.3d4A3 e t seq.; I n r e t h e M a r r i a g e of Karr ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -
ivlont . , 628 P.2d 267, 38 S t . R e p . 506, and c a s e s c i t e d therein. The reasoning behind this rule is that the ~ i s t r i c tC o u r t , in clpportioning the marital assets, inust consider "the opportunity of each for the acquisition of c d p i t a l a s s e t s and income." S e c t i o n 4Q-4-202 (1), MCA.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l i c i t l y f o u n d t h a t m a i n t e n a n c e would end when t h e husband retired. As a form o f marital property and a s a substitute f o r maintenance, the District Court granted the wife a one-third share in each of the retirement plans. This well-reasoned s o l u t i o n is s u p p o r t e d by evidence of the wife's f u t u r e needs and the husband's future ability t o meet those needs. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s dpportionment of r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s must therefore be upheld.
The l a s t c o n t e n t i o n r a i s e d b y t h e h u s b a n d is whether the District Court's failure to find t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e was i r r e t r i e v a b l y broken and t o f i n d t h a t one o f t h e p a r t i e s h a s b e e n d o m i c i l e d i n Montana f o r n i n e t y d a y s m a k e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment v o i d f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n .
The husband failed to make any exceptions to the District Court's findings of f a c t s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. Failure to make such exceptions is fatal when the issue involved does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. See, In re the Marriage of Barron (1978), 177 Mont. 1 6 1 , 580 P.2d 936; Turner v. Turner ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 5 7 Mont. 262, 484 P.2d 1303; and H a l l d o r s o n , supra.
Here, the record supports the District Court's jurisdiction both over t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r and the parties. T h e f a i l u r e t o make t h e s e f i n d i n g s , in t h i s case, is merely a technical oversight by the District Court and does not a f f e c t the substantial r i g h t s of the parties. The h u s b a n d ' s failure to except to the District Court's findings, t h e r e f o r e , p r e c l u d e s t h i s C o u r t from r e v i e w o f t h e m a t t e r .
F i n d i n g no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i t s judyrnent is a f f i r m e d . Respondent's motion for reason- a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d c o s t s i s g r a n t e d a n d remanded t o t h e District Court f o r proper determination.
W e concur :