Marriage of Vivian

Montana Supreme Court

Marriage of Vivian

Montana Supreme Court·Decided July 2, 1980·No. 80-033·Published

Opinion

NO. 80-33

I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA

I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F

ELIZABETH PEARL V I V I A N ,

P e t i t i o n e r a d Respondent,

VS . ROBERT WILBER V I V I A N ,

R e s p o n d e n t and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of S i l v e r Bow. H o n o r a b l e F r a n k E . B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l of R e c o r d :

For A p p e l l a n t :

M c C a f f e r y and P e t e r s o n , B u t t e , M o n t a n a

For R e s p o n d e n t :

Joseph E n g e l , 111, B u t t e , M o n t a n a

S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A p r i l 2 5 , 1 9 8 0

Decided : JUL 2 - 1980 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 .

The i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,

County of s i l v e r Bow, abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g a p p e l - l a n t t o pay h i s former w i f e $200 p e r month maintenance

p u r s u a n t t o a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e .

The m a r r i a g e of R o b e r t Wilber V i v i a n and E l i z a b e t h

P e a r l V i v i a n was d i s s o l v e d i n 1977 by a d e c r e e of t h e D i s -

t r i c t Court. Wife a p p e a l e d from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s -

t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and award of m a i n t e n a n c e , and

t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d and remanded f o r a new t r i a l . Vivian v.

Vivian (1978), Mont. , 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep.

1359. I n o u r p r i o r o p i n i o n , we h e l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

had f a i l e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s and

make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s t o s u p p o r t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l

a s s e t s ; had e r r e d i n d e d u c t i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n h e r i t a n c e

from t h e v a l u e of t h e home p r i o r t o d i v i d i n g t h e m a r i t a l

p r o p e r t y ; and t h a t b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n was r e v e r s e d ,

t h e award of maintenance would a l s o have t o be r e v e r s e d

b e c a u s e " [ t l h e r u l e i s t h a t t h e n e e d s of t h e spouse a s t o

maintenance and t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f such a n award c a n o n l y

be p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d a f t e r t h e r e h a s been a n e q u i t a b l e

d i v i s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . " V i v i a n v. V i v i a n , s u p r a ,

583 P.2d a t 1075, 35 St.Rep. a t 1362. A f t e r a new t r i a l f o l l o w i n g remand, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law on J u n e 26,

1979. The husband c h a l l e n g e d 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

and a d d i t i o n a l h e a r i n g s w e r e h e l d on August 8 , 1979 and on

August 30, 1979. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d i t s f i n a l amended 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 law, t o g e t h e r w i t h a n

accompanying memorandum on September 7 , 1979, and t h e amended judgment and d e c r e e w a s f i l e d on October 23, 1979. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t u l t i m a t e l y found t h e n e t worth of

t h e p a r t i e s t o be $47,500.55 a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e and

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e w i f e owed m e d i c a l b i l l s of $1,025.70 and

f u r t h e r i n d e b t e d n e s s of $5,000 p l u s i n t e r e s t on a bank l o a n .

The m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y was d i v i d e d e q u a l l y , based on t h e

w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n a s a homemaker f o r n e a r l y t h i r t y y c . a r s ,

w i t h e a c h p a r t y t o r e c e i v e $23,750. The husband was o r d e r e d

t o pay t h e w i f e $200 p e r month maintenance. Husband was

g i v e n t h e o p t i o n of s a t i s f y i n g t h e w i f e ' s s h a r e of t h e

m a r i t a l e s t a t e by payment of a lump sum of $23,750 o r by

p a y i n g $8,509.73 c a s h and t h e b a l a n c e of $15,240 o v e r t e n

y e a r s a t $184.90 p e r month, which i n c l u d e s 8 p e r c e n t a n n u a l

i n t e r e s t on t h e b a l a n c e due.

The p e r t i n e n t 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 a r e :

I That P e t i t i o n e r , Elizabeth P e a r l Vivian i s now 59 y e a r s o l d and h a s no f o r m a l t r a i n i n g f o r any t y p e of employment o u t s i d e t h e home.

"IV T h a t P e t i t i o n e r h a s r e c e n t l y undergone major s u r g e r y and i s c o n v a l e s c i n g t h e r e f r o m ; t h a t p r i o r t o her surgery she w a s i n extremely poor h e a l t h , s u f f e r i n g from d i a b e t e s and h i g h blood p r e s s u r e and was m e n t a l l y and p h y s i c a l l y i n c a p a b l e of working. That P e t i t i o n e r s t i l l s u f f e r s from h y p e r t e n s i o n , weakness and d i a - b e t e s and s h e i s s t i l l under a D o c t o r ' s c a r e f o r h y p e r t e n s i o n and d i a b e t e s .

"VII T h a t t h e Respondent, R o b e r t V i v i a n i s an a b l e - b o d i e d man, a g e 57, employed by t h e Mon- t a n a Power Company i n B u t t e and e a r n s a g r o s s income of $1,740.00 p e r month.

" V I I I T h a t t h e o n l y s o u r c e of income P e t i t i o n e r now h a s i s t h e temporary s u p p o r t which t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t o r d e r e d Respondent t o pay i n t h e sum of $200.00 p e r month and t h a t it w a s established during t h e hearing t h a t t h i s was i n a d e q u a t e t o meet h e r modest needs and s u p p o r t . "XI1 T h a t when P e t i t i o n e r h a s p a i d [ h e r d e b t s ] s h e w i l l have r e m a i n i n g a b o u t $17,724.30 from t h e m a r i t a l assets a l l o c a t e d t o h e r h e r e u n d e r . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t s a i d sum i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v i d e f o r o r d i n a r y and r e a s o n a b l e needs, t h e P e t i t i o n e r being unable t o support h e r s e l f by employment i n any of t h e ways s u g g e s t e d by Respondent, o r a t a l l .

"That i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l of t h e f a c t s i n t h i s case t h e Court f i n d s it f a i r , e q u i t a b l e and j u s t t h a t Respondent pay maintenance f o r P e t i t i o n e r i n t h e amount of $200.00 p e r month u n t i l t h e f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h i s C o u r t , s a i d payments t o commence t h e 1 5 t h day of t h e month s u c c e e d i n g t h e d a t e o f t h e e n t r y of t h e amended judgment i n t h i s a c t i o n . "

The w i f e ' s n e e d s and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g f x r

t w a r d i n g h e r maintenance a r e f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d i n t h e D i s -

t r i c t C o u r t ' s memoranda f i l e d August 20, 1979 and September

7, 1979. On a p p e a l , t h e husband u r g e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding h i s former w i f e $200

p e r month i n maintenance. H e contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e

e l e m e n t s o f a maintenance award and by f a i l i n g t o a d o p t

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 a b i l i t y of t h e husband t o

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI