STENBERG v STENBERG

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12306 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA OR F F 1972 ANNE E. STENBERG, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs CARL M. STENBER.G, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert S. K e l l e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Korn, Worden, Walterskirchen & C h r i s t i a n s e n , K a l i s p e l l , Montana. Gary L. C h r i s t i a n s e n argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana. For Respondent: M. Dean J e l l i s o n argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana. Submitted: Decided: Filed: !fib f % 273 November 29, 1972 3 f i 1 2 TCJ~? ~ XI. J ~ s t i c e viesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opix~ionof t h e Court. ' i h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o r ~ i n t h e e l e v e n ~ hj u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of F l a t h e a d . Plaintiff Anne E, Stzenberg brought t h e a c t i o n s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e and alimony, d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y , a t t o r n e y f e e s and v a r i o u s o t h e r r e l i e f . Defendant husband C a r l M. Stenberg answered and counterclaimed f o r divorce. The c a u s e was t r i e d by t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . ,I d i v o r c e was g r a n t e d t o b o t h p a r t i e s h u t no alimony was g r a n t e d t o the wife. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s only on t h e f a c t t h a t she was , - ~ o given an alimony s e t t l e m e n t ; she does n o t a p p e a l t h e g r a n t i n g t QP t h e d i v o r c e . The p a r t i e s were married a t I < a l i s p e l l , Montana on I4ay 2 8 , 1 9 5 7 ; t h e w i f e was 42 and t h e husband 6 2 , N c h i l d r e n were born o a s i s s u e of t h e m a r r i a g e , although each had c h i l d r e n by a p r e v i o u s ruarriage. These c h i l d r e n were grown and n o t dependent upon e i t h e r 0 2 the p a r t i e s a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e . Both p a r t i e s ~ e s t i f i e d t o a l l e g e d misconduct of t h e o t h e r p a r t y d u r i n g t h e 14 y e a r q ~ a r r i a g e . S u f f i c e t o s a y t h a t t h e marriage experienced t u r b u l e n t p e r i o d s , p r i o r t o t h e time of f i n a l s e p a r a t i o n and d i v o r c e . Duri-ng t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t r i a l , eech p a r t y prepared and f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t s e t t i - n g f o r t h t h e i r f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n . The a f f i d a v i t s show t h e w i f e h a s s u b s t a n t i a l l y no money on which t o l i v e and h a s been on cotznty w e l f a r e a s s i s t a n c e s i n c e t h e s e p a r a zlon. O t h e o t h e r hand, t h e husband h a s around $180 p e r month n incornc, from a v e t e r a n ' s pension and Soci-a1 S e c u r i t y ; he otms a 73 a c r e farm which i s l e a s e d out on a s h a r e - c r o p b a s i s , b u t h a s s~lbstantial. alue. v This farm h a s a s m a l l mortgage on i t , b u t the t r i a l c o u r t found i t s v a l u e would b e between $25,000 and $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 , c l e a r of a l l encumbrances, Testimony a t t r i a l r e v e a l e d wife t h e / s u f f e r s from a h e a r i n g problem and a r t h r i t i s , and s h e i s r l o L i n a p o s i t i o n t o o b t a i n worlc. The t r i a l c o u r t upon h e a r i n g t h e evidence g r a n t e d a d i v o r c e t o b o t h p a r t i e s , b u t d i d n o t award t h e w i f e any alimony s e t t l e m e n t . Post t r i a l motions were f i l e d and argued, b u z a ~ were Llenied i by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The w i f e now b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l on t h e grounds t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d on t h e q u e s t i o n of alimony, Appellant p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review. The major i s s u e i s whether the t r i a l c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n i t s r u l i n g on the q u e s t i o n of alimony, I t was c l e a r l y demonstrated t h e w i f e h a s no income and a oec worth of only a few hundred d o i l a r s , c o n s i s t i n g of items of pt2rsonal p r o p e r t y . She h a s few marketable s k i l l s and s u f f e r s from p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t i e s which s e v e r e l y l i m i t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o r f u t u r e employment. For t h e s e r e a s o n s , s h e i s a t p r e s e n t l o r c e d t o e x i s t on w e l f a r e and h a s become a charge of t h e s t a t e . The husband h a s o n l y a s m a l l income from Social S e c u r i t y dnu a v e t e r a n ' s pension which would n o t p e r m i t him t o make a n o n t h i y payment t o the w i f e and s t i l l have s u f f i c i e n t t o l i v e on himself. Yet, h e does have a v a l u a b l e a s s e t , a 73 a c r e farm worth approximately $30,000. 5 e would have gone fr He t e s t i f t e d t h a t t o o b t a i n t h e d i v o r c e q u i t e a ways I t i n p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t . time, he t e s t - i f i e d h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o g i v e h e r $6,000. k t one In a p o s t t r i a l memorandum h i s c o u n s e l i n d i c a t e d a w i l l j - n g n e s s t o provide some small amount f o r h e r c a r e . R e c e n t l y , t h e r e have been a number of c a s e s decided by t h i s Zourt on t h e q u e s t i o n of p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t a r i s i n g o u t of Jivorce. T h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e would seem t o be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e s e r e c e n t c a s e s and t h e ones c i t e d by b o t h c o u n s e l . Here, w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h t h e problem of alimony o n l y ; i t i s n o t a q u e s t i o n of d i v i d i n g up t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e marriage. The q u e s t i o n i s - - - u n d e r what c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s alimony g r a n t e d ? The t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s r u l i n g s t a t e d t h e view t h a t alimony is based on 1:he economic s t a t u s of t h e w i f e ; t h a t s h e h a s n o t b e t t e r e d h e r s e l f d u r i n g t h e marriage a s t h e husband h a s ; and s h c r e f o r e , t h e husband w i l l have t o b e a r t h e burden of f i n a n c i a l c d r e of t h e w i f e . But, t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r marriage was more of a b u s i n e s s arrangement f o r b o t h p a r t i e s . 'Che wife '1;iil a p l a c e I3c KO l i v e , 3nd "_he riecessitie;, >I' i.ii'~ O ~ J U ~ U s u p p l i e d by t h e husband, working t o supply t h e i t e m s they b o t h would need. The c o u r t maintained t h e w i f e brought n o t h i n g i-llco t h e marriage, and was going o u t t h e same way, h e r p o s i t i o n had n o t changed d u r i n g t h e marriage. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g i s d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d f a u l t J ~ i t i ~'1ut t h i s woman i-s c e r t a i n l y 1eavi.ng t h e marriage w i t h l e s s , .rhan when she e n t e r e d i t . She i s 14 y e a r s o l d e r ; she cannot f i n d ~5niploynentdue t o p h y s i c a l i n f i r m i t i e s she d i d n o t have w'nen ;he e n t e r e d t h e marriage. F u r t h e r , she h a s c o n t r i b u t e d by h e l p i n g on t h e farm, by a i d i n g i n t h e b u i l d i n g of an a d d i t i o n t o t h e farm hone, and o t h e r a d d i t i o n s t o t h e farm p r o p e r t y . ! C T T ~ F J when The husband he e n t e r e d t h e marriage t h a t h i s w i f e came i n t o t h e 'ndrriage w i t h n o t h i n g , no a s s e t s , and h e should have Zcnom h e was s t ~ i n gt o have t o t a k e c a r e of h i s w i f e f o r h e r l i f e t i m e . She was IJ-s w i f e and performed t h e domestic d u t i e s and h e must have been A w a r e t h a t s h e could n o t e a r n a l i v i n g w i t h what s k i l l s she had. ~qow, a t t h i s t i m e , t h e husba~idand w i f e cannot l i v e t o g e t h e r , 3 n i ~ a r r i a g eh a s ended, keep a l i h i s property. The husband i s going t o be allowed t o The w i f e i.s t o l d t h a t s i n c e she e n t e r e d tl-iis marriage w i t h n o t h i n g , p u t t i n g a s i d e t h e f a c t t h a t s h e ,~orlcedf o r 14 y e a r s h e l p i n g w i t h h i s farm, s h e w i l l n o t r e c e i v e . i ~ r y cype of h e l p . To put i t b l u n e i y , t h e e f f e c t of t h e t r i a l i ~ u i - t ' sr u l i n g i s t o make t h e e x - w i f e a p u b l i c c h a r g e , I n a case such a s t h i s , alimony shoult-1 h e g r a n t e d i f p o s s i b l e 30 !:ha: {:he w i f e w i l l n o t become a ward of t h e s t a t e . It i s a ,dues tion of whether t h e t a x p a y e r s of F l a t h e a d County should pay f o r 1ivLng expenses o f t h i s woman o r should t h e man w h o married 11er 14 y e a r s ago and promised t o l o v e , h o n o r and cher'sh d e a t h v~ouidend 'clre r e l a t i o n s h i p . h e r till The husband c l e a r l y h a s t h a t d u t y a n d ?-~e i l l be r e q u i r e d t o pay f o r t h e support of his w i f e , w . h , i t h i n h i s abLiLty. 3ecLkon 3-1-139,li.C;,i"l c e c j ~ i . ~ i c - . i !1-0 3,- 1?4/, ;Irovides ~ p r o v i d e suppori: lior Ishc w i f e . h aa hdsband Lay ~ In a s i t u a l - i o n , ,,lch 2 s h e r e , when Chc d i v o r c e i s g r a n t e d t o b o t h p a r t i e s ~ ~ t ~ h o r fio ry a l l o w i n g an alimony s e t t l e m e n t i s provided i n t i ~ r i z s . Burns, 245 I/iont. 1, 0 , 400 P , 2d 642. v There t h i s Court ~aser-~ed that: t o deny alimony under t h e f a c t s might r e s u l t i.rl " l e a v i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t a t l a r g e i n t h e community w i t h o u t i~cctrts o f s u p p o r t . iI The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f e l t t h a t under e x i s t i n g law i t could n , ~ c ~ a n talimony payment t o t h e w i f e . g 3;: I t remains t h e o b l i g a t i o n t h e husband t o s u p p o r t t h e w i f e s o t h a t she w i l l n o t became burden on the p u b l i c . I d l ~ i l et h e t r i a l c o u r t f e l t e x i s t i n g law i ~ ~ ~ i notl a l l o w a g r o s s amount as alimony under t h e s e c i r c u n l c ;t=inces, we C X ~ C I - It~ e h law of Burns and h o l d t h a t such alimony ~ h d i l l dbe ailowed. A p p e l l a n t ' s second i s s u e f o r review i s t h a c an i n d i g e n t persorr h a s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a t r a n s c r i - p t on a p p e a l i n a c i v i l m a t t e r w i t h o u t prepayment of c o s t s . This i s a q u e s t i o n o f c o n s ~ i t u t i o n a lr i g h t s given t o i n d i g e n t a p p e l l a n t s . F u r t h a t i s s u e t o be p r o p e r l y r a i s e d b e f o r e t h i s Court an i r l d i v i d u a l , proceeding i n forma p a u p e r i s , must have been denied ci copy of t h e t r a n s c r i p t wi.i:hout paying any of t h e c o s t s . That i ~ d sn o t happened i-n t h i s c a s e and a p p e l l a n t does n o t have 5 ~ a n d i n gt o a s s e r t t h e i s s u e , I n N a t i o n a l S u r e t y Corp. v . Kruse, 1.21 Mont. 202, 207, 192 P,2d 317, t h i s Court s a l d : II W w i l l not decide a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l question e u n l e s s i t i s n e c e s s a r i l y involved and n e c e s s a r y t o a d e c i s i o n . 11 H e x e , Che c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n r a i s e d i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y invoived, t h e r e f o r e w e w i l l n o t d i s c u s s i t . A p p e l i a n t l s f i n a l i s s u e concerns t h e c o s t s of t h i s a c t i o n a n J attorney f e e s , The husband w i l l b e r e q u i r e d t o pay r e a s o n a b l e aLtorney f e e s , a s determined by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and a l s o c o s t s oT t h e a c t i o n , which i n c l u d e s c o s t of t h e t r a n s c r i p t , The cause i.s rerila~~ciedo I-he li.sl;ricir. l u c i ~ t,o t that a t.ea;oL~abLf2 n d a p p r o p r i a t e alirnony s e t t l e m e n t cc3n b e made. a ; L u s t s w i l l be a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t respondent and t h e d i s ~ r i c t c:ourt s h a l l t a k e any o t h e r a c t i o n which might b e n e c e s s a r y , n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s o p i n i o n . Associat'rJ J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.