FRANCKE v FRANCKE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 12196 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF WE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1972 - - - WALTER FRANCKE , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , SANDRA J E A N FRANCKE, Defendant and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h .Tudicial. D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana, C h a r l e s F, Moses and K, D. T o l l i v e r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. F o r Respondent : Longan and Holmstrom, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Robert W, Holmstrom a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. Submitted : October 27, 1972 Decided : Filed: ,fr\T15 . "?-3 ,* JAN^ 197, ivir. J u s t i c e (;tine B. 3 a i y d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t award i n a d i v o r c e judgment e n t e r e d September 20, 1971, i n f a v o r o f e a c h p a r t y a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S t i l l w a t e r County, following t r i a l t o t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g without a jury. The a c t i o n was commenced by p l a i n t i f f D r . W a l t e r Francke and d e f e n d a n t Xrs. Sandra J e a n Francke c o u n t e r c l a i m e d f o r d i v o r c e . The Franckes h a v e t h r e e c h i l d r e n , a son now I1 y e a r s o l d , a son now 10 y e a r s o l d , and a d a u g h t e r now 9 y e a r s o l d . The decree, with t h e w i f e ' s consent, granted custody of t h e o l d e s t child t o t h e husband and c u s t o d y o f t h e two younger c h i l d r e n to t h e w i f e , The w i f e was g r a n t e d a monthly alimony award of $1,000 u n t i l d e a t h o r r e m a r r i a g e , and $150 p e r month s u p p o r t f o r each o f t h e two c h i l d r e n i n h e r c u s t o d y . Provision was rnade f o r t h e husband t o pay a l l m e d i c a l and d e n t a l e x p e n s e s of aL1 t h r e e c h i l d r e n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e husband was o r d e r e d t o d e s i g n a t e t h e w i f e i r r e v o c a b l e b e n e f i c i a r y of $50,000 i n l i f e i n s u r m c e t o p r o t e c t t h e alimony. Each p a r t y a d m i t s t o t h i s Court t h a t t h e alimony award h a s been t e r m i n a t e d by r e m a r r i a g e , . The p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d -:hts i B ~ f i E o s e t o v e r t:o t h e husband h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e j o i n t l y te '7eid p r o p e r t y and d i r e c t e d t h e husband t o pay t h e w i f e t h e c a s h ;urn of $60,000; $30,000 t o b e due i n 1 9 7 1 and $10,000 each y e a r tor three successive years. The d e c r e e f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h e husband t o s e t o v e r h i s i n t e r e s t i n some household f u r n i t u r e and h i s i n t e r e s t i n a n a u t o m o b i l e used by t h e w i f e . It appears t h a t ;:he b u l k of t h e h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e was a c q u i r e d a f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e , ~riiroughh i s f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n and was h e l d a l m o s t e n t i r e l y Irs s o l e ownership by him. Motion f o r a new t r i a l was made on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e judgment g o v e r n i n g t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t was ~ l o cs u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e , a p p e a l was t a k e n . The motion was d e n i e d and t h i s P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s 5 u t one i s s u e o n a p p e a l , w h e ~ h e st h e s v i d e n c e j u s t i f i e s t h e award t o defendant w i f e of $60,000 i n lieu of p r o p e r t y , when t h e c o u r t a l s o awarded t h e w i f e alimony. The judgment of d i v o r c e , s u p p o r t , alimony, custody and o t h e r p r o p e r t y awards a r e n o t c h a l l e n g e d on a p p e a l , From t h e r e c o r d , i t appears t h a t D r . Francke began h i s n ~ e d i c a lp r a c t i c e i n B i l l i n g s i n 1955. I n 1959, he married M r s . Francke a t C h a r l e s t o n , West V i r g i n i a . A t t h a t time h e had zstablished a successful practice. A t t h e time of t h e marriage Dr. Francke was approximately 40 y e a r s o l d ; Mrs. Francke was 2 2 years old. The evidence i s i n c o n f l i c t on m a t t e r s of f i n a n c i a l worth, however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t found i n i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t No, 8 t h a t p l a i n t i f f averaged i n e x c e s s of $81,000 p e r y e a r t a x a b l e income d u r i n g t h e p a s t f o u r y e a r s ; t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e 3f t h e marriage p l a i n t i f f a c q u i r e d p r o p e r t y v a l u e d i n e x c e s s of $250,000; t h a t t h e p a r t i e s l i v e d i n a l u x u r i o u s home, t r a v e l e d , and d i d a l l t h i n g s compatible w i 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 c o u r t found t h a t d e f e n d a n t , t h r e e y e a r s p r i o r t o h e r mdrriage, r e c e i v e d t h e Miss C o n g e n i a l i t y award a t t h e Miss ~ m e r i c aPageant i n 1956, r e s u l t i n g i n appearances on n a t i o n a l t e l e v i s i o n a s an a c t r e s s ; t h a t she had p a r t i a l l y completed h e r s ~ u d i e s i n c l o t h i n g d e s i g n and was employed by a n a t i o n a l company i n a public r e l a t i o n s capacity, receiving a very s u b s t a n t i a l income; t h a t a s a r e s u l t of t h e marriage s h e h a s n o t engaged i n t h e s e occupations and now i s unable t o resume h e r c a r e e r . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t of t h e p r o p e r t y accumulated b y p l a i n t i f f d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e marriage only two p a r c e l s sf land were i n j o i n t tenancy and t h e b a l a n c e i n p l a i n t i f f ' s name a l o n e ; t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e marriage defendant a i d e d p i a i n t i f f i n f u r t h e r i n g h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , medical a u x i l i a r i e s and i n p r e p a r a t i o n of medical e x h i b i t s f o r r a d i o l o g i c a l conventions. 7 he d i s t r i c t c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d more i n t h i s c a s e than mere f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s . The law h a s never c o n f i n e d ' j o i n t e f f o r t s ' t o such a narrow meaninn. The m a r i t a l p a r t n e r s h i p ---- i s more t h a n a b u s i n z s s r e l a t i o n . The p e c u n i a r y and p r o p r i e t a r y f r u i t s of t h e marriage a r e f r e q u e n t l y a c q u i r e d by j oi-nt e f f o r t , even though a c t u a l f i n a n c i a l o u t l a y may be more t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of one spouse than t h e o t h e r . his h o l d i n g does n o t make Montana a community p r o p e r t y s t a t e . There i s no r e q u i r e d p e r c e n t a g e of a l l o c a t i o n t o be a p p l i e d i n a l l c a s e s . Each c a s e must b e looked a t - by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h an eye t o i t s unique c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e , we a r e n o t compelled t o s t a t e t h a t e q u a l d i v i s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y i s an i n e q u i t a b l e r e s u l t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . P l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t e n t i o n s a r e n o t v a l i d i n l i g h t of t h e pronouncements i n Cook. Each c a s e must be viewed i n d i v i d u a l l y and each i s a s d i f f e r e n t a s a r e t h e persons and t h e i r l i v e s t h a t a r e involved. Mrs. ~ u n n e w e l l ' s s i t u a t i o n a s a ranch w i f e would n o t b e t h e same a s M r s . ~ r a n c k e ' sa s t h e w i f e of a r a d i o l o g i s t , whose income i s d e r i v e d from r e f e r r a l s from physicians. Therefore h e r s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , entertainment, and work i n t h e medical a s s o c i a t i o n a u x i l i a r i e s would be more s i g n i f i c a n t than i f s h e were married t o a g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r , o r of v e r y l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e i f she were a ranch w i f e . In ocher words, t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s argued by p l a i n t i f f cannot con,-.- O ~ '.L LO . Conceding a l l p a r t i e s g i v e up something when t h e y d e c i d e marry, t h e c o u r t would have t o look t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a s e . Some wives can s t e p back i n t o t h e i r p r i o r jobs o r c a r e e r s and some cannot. It would seem t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e looks a t t h i s a s p e c t of t h e p a r t i e s ' l i v e s a s a cont r i b u t i n g f a c t o r t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n terms of a b i l i t y t o proceed t o r e e n t e r g a i n f u l employment. W do n o t f e e l t h e argument a s t o t h e adequacy of t h e c h i l d e s u p p u r t award o r i t s i n c l u s i o n i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n i s r e l e v a n t . T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l n o t comment on i t . A f t e r a c l o s e examination of a l l of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h e r e c o r d , w e f e e l t h e award appealed from i s supported by t h e r e c o r d and t h e a p p l i c a b l e law, The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. '~ssociate Justice /7 Chief Justice t

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.