State Ex Rel. Chebul v. District Co

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 11, 1975
Docket13054
StatusPublished

This text of State Ex Rel. Chebul v. District Co (State Ex Rel. Chebul v. District Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Chebul v. District Co, (Mo. 1975).

Opinion

No. 13054

I N THE SUPRh'ME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

THE STATE OF MONTANA ex re1 WILLIAM G. CHEBUL,

R e l a tor,

THE D I S T K l C T COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, I N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 'CREASURE AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT H. WILSON, D I S T R l C T JUDGE,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:

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

For R e l a t o r :

R a l p h H e r r i o t t argued, H y s h a m , M o n t a n a

For Respondents:

M i c h a e l J . W h a l e n argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

-

Submitted: June 9 , 1 9 7 5

Decided : AU l 1f. 9975 i Filed : ~LJLA A 1 3ib M. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e r Court.

T h i s i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein William G. Chebul s e e k s a s t a y o r d e r r e l a t i n g t o d i s t r i b u t i o n and payment of c e r t a i n r o y a l t i e s t o M a r j o r i e Chebul, pending f i n a l judgment i n a divorce action. O June 1 8 , 1969, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Yellowstone n County, Hon. C h a r l e s Sande, p r e s i d i n g , made and e n t e r e d a d e c r e e of s e p a r a t e maintenance f o r t h e s u p p o r t of M a r j o r i e Chebul and h e r d a u g h t e r s . The c a u s e was e n t i t l e d "Majorie Chebul v. William G. Chebul", C i v i l Action No. 53053, i n Yellowstone County. The d e c r e e provided i n p a r t : "In l i e u of a l l f u t u r e o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e defendant t o support t h e p l a i n t i f f , t h e r e i s hereby s e t over t o h e r a s h e r s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y f o r h e r s u p p o r t and t o a s s i s t i n t h e s u p p o r t and e d u c a t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e p r o p e r t y f o l l o w i n g** *.I1

Then t h e d e c r e e l i s t e d numerous o i l and gas l e a s e s owned by William G. Chebul, t o g e t h e r w i t h i n t e r e s t s i n o t h e r p r o p e r t y s e t f o r t h and d e s c r i b e d i n p a r t i c u l a r i t y . The d e c r e e was e n t e r e d by d e f a u l t . N a p p e a l was taken. o Some f i v e and a h a l f y e a r s l a t e r , on December 16, 1974, William G. Chebul f i l e d a complaint f o r a d i v o r c e a g a i n s t h i s w i f e M a r j o r i e i n Cause No. 1154, T r e a s u r e County, Montana, Hon. Robert Wilson, p r e s i d i n g judge. I n t h a t a c t i o n p l a i n t i f f con- t e n d s t h e assignment of t h e o i l and gas l e a s e s executed a s a d i r e c t r e s u l t of t h e above quoted p o r t i o n of t h e d e c r e e of s e p a r a t e maintenance, should be d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d and t h e p r o p e r t y of William G. Chebul, and t h a t a l l such o i l and gas l e a s e s be f r e e from a l l l i e n , c h a r g e o r encumbrance f o r t h e purpose of c h i l d support. As a r e s u l t of t h e f i l i n g of t h e complaint f o r a d i v o r c e

by William Chebul, a l l support income t o M a r j o r i e and h e r two d a u g h t e r s was stopped i n January 1975. Marjorie a l l e g e s t h a t i t h a s been n e c e s s a r y f o r h e r t o borrow money t o keep h e r daugh-

t e r s i n school a s w e l l a s t o support h e r s e l f . She i s now w i t h i n

one y e a r o f o b t a i n i n g a d e g r e e i n n u r s i n g . William Chebul, t h r o u g h t h e f i l i n g of t h e a c t i o n i n t h i s Court i s a t t e m p t i n g

ro keep t h e funds i n v o l v e d impounded u n t i l t h e r e can b e a f i n a l judgment i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n .

N a j o r i e f i l e d a n answer t o t h e d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t and l a t e r f i l e d an amended answer and c r o s s - c o m p l a i n t s e t t i n g f o r t h e s t o p p e l

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

was mooted. H e a r i n g on t h e motion t o amend was h e a r d i n T r e a s u r e

Sounty on May 23, 1975 by Judge Wilson who t o o k t h e t e s t i m o n y . ~ r M a r j o r i e o v e r t h e p r o t e s t s of c o u n s e l f o r W i l l i a m , who was ' n o t present. The t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d a t t h e end of ~ a r j o r i e ' s

. i i r e c t and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n :

"Mr. Whalen, a t t h i s p o i n t t h e Court i s g o i n g t o t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h i s m a t t e r comes on b e f o r e che Court a t t h i s t i m e n o t on t h e m e r i t s o f whether d r n o t t h e s u p p o r t i s needed o r r e q u i r e d , b u t s t r i c t l y Jn t h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n o f whether o r n o t t h e p r e v i o u s ~ r d e r f t h e Court h e r e i n Yellowstone County w a s v a l i d o ~r i n v a l i d . I d o n ' t need any more e v i d e n c e a t t h i s ~ o i n t ,and I w i l l a c c e p t no f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e a t t h i s uoint: I am g o i n g t o deny t h e motion t o s t a y , however, T w i l l a l l o w Counsel f o r W i l l i a m Chebul u n t i l t h e 1 3 t h df June t o o b t a i n a W r i t p r o t e c t i n g ~ i l l i a m ' sr i g h t s i n t h a t r e s p e c t t h a t t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r o f t h e Court w a s i n v a l i d , b u t on t h e 1 3 t h day o f J u n e i f t h i s Court h a s n o t been r e s t r a i n e d by t h e h i g h e r Court t h e r e w i l l b e an o r d e r e n t e r e d , o r d e r i n g t h e o i l companies t o c o n t i n u e payment o f a l l p a s t and h e l d and immediate p r o c e e d s of she r o y a l t i e s . II !-t should b e n o t e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l l y t h e home was s e t o v e r

so rvlarjorie and h a s s i n c e been s o l d . Marjorie has received a

;urn or' o v e r $50,000; a n d , u n t i l t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n was s t a r t e d ,

was r e c e i v i n g some $1500 p e r month. P l a i n t i f f William, i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n , s e e k s a s t a y of t h e s e payments pending t h e a p p e a l . ilefendant M a r j o r i e h a s a p p e a l e d from Judge ~ i l s o n ' so r d e r o f vlay 1, 1975, which o r d e r r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y t i t l e

l a d n o t been t r a n s f e r r e d . It appears t h a t Marjorie may b e e n t i t l e d t o some support

payments pending t h e h e a r i n g on t h e d i v o r c e , b u t from t h i s record we cannot know. However i t e q u a l l y appears t h a t t h e r o y a l t y payments would be d i s s i p a t e d and l o s t should William p r e v a i l . It seems t h e n , i n j u s t i c e , t h a t t h e r o y a l t y payments should be s t a y e d pending a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . Accordingly, t h i s Court d i r e c t s t h a t t h e o r d e r of May 23, 1975 b e s e t a s i d e , t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a r e a s o n a b l e support f o r Marjorie and t h e daughters i f s o i n d i c a t e d and t h a t t h e balance of t h e r o y a l t y payments be impounded pending h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s . It i s so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State Ex Rel. Chebul v. District Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-chebul-v-district-co-mont-1975.