ROGERS v ROGERS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13148 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1976 ANNE ROGERS, Plaintiff -vs and Respondent, - JULIAN ROGERS, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J. Nelson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For A p p e l l a n t : Smith, Emmons, B a i l l i e and Walsh, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana R o b e r t J. Emmons a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : D z i v i , C o n k l i n , Johnson and Nybo, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Louis D. Nybo a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: 1, 5 1976 March 8 , 1976 k!AR 2 5 1976 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the district court, Cascade County. Plaintiff-wife filed an action seeking separate maintenance and alimony. Defendant-husband answered and counterclaimed requesting a divorce. The court granted de- fendant a divorce, denied alimony, but awarded plaintiff a judgment for the sum of $23,500, plus interest from the date of the separation. judgment Defendant appeals seeking a reversal of the money . Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1967 and no children were born of this marriage. Plaintiff had been previous- ly married, was divorced, and had the custody of three children of that marriage. She received $250 per month per child for the support of the children who were 8, 10 and 11 years old at the time their parents were divorced. As a result of the property settlement from her former husband, plaintiff had a net worth of approximately $70,000 consisting principally of stocks. Defendant-husband was a widower with five children, all were older than plaintiff's children. Following the marriage, plaintiff's three children moved to Montana to live with them at defendant's ranch. Also, during the marriage at least three of defendant's children were at the ranch home. Defendant's ranch consists of some 3,800 acres and his net worth at the time of the trial was approximately $800,000. The trial court found that though there was no formal agreement or understanding between plaintiff and defendant with regard to the children's support money, it is not disputed that during the marriage plaintiff deposited that money into a checking account, together with the income from her stocks, amounting to approximately $3,000 per year, and from the account she ran the family household. During the marriage she paid for all groceries e x c e p t meat, medical expenses, c a r p e t i n g , a n automobile, i t s r e p a i r s , l i c e n s i n g and t a x e s , d r u g s t o r e b i l l s , c l o t h i n g , t r i p s , C h r i s t m a s g i f t s , and m i s c e l l a n e o u s h o u s e h o l d e x p e n d i t u r e s . Dur- i n g t h e m a r r i a g e d e f e n d a n t g a v e p l a i n t i f f no money f o r h e r s u p p o r t , n o r d i d h e make any d e p o s i t s i n p l a i n t i f f ' s h o u s e h o l d checking account. For f i v e y e a r s he had a w i f e , a homemaker, a companion, and a p r o v i d e r f o r t h a t home a t no c o s t t o him. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t d u r i n g t h e t i m e p l a i n t i f f m a i n t a i n e d t h e household c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t s h e made d e p o s i t s i n t h e amount o f $55,802.42. A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a number o f d e d u c t i o n s which t h e c o u r t found w e r e o f b e n e f i t t o p l a i n t i f f o r h e r c h i l d r e n , t h e c o u r t found p l a i n t i f f had s p e n t i n t h e way o f f a m i l y c o n t r i b u t i o n s t h e sum o f $40,012.94. While g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t t h e d i v o r c e , and r e f u s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s r e q u e s t f o r a l i m o n y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d f i n d p l a i n t i f f - w i f e was e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t f o r a s s e t s s h e expended f o r t h e e n t i r e f a m i l y ' s b e n e f i t and f o r h e r s e r v i c e s a s a w i f e and m o t h e r , i n t h e sum o f $23,500 p l u s i n t e r e s t a t s i x p e r c e n t from May 31, 1973. On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t - h u s b a n d a l l e g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t erred : (1) I n awarding a judgment f o r $23,500 on t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , and i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e o f s e p a r a t i o n . ( 2 ) I n i t s award o f $934 r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e amount t e n d e r e d by d e f e n d a n t t o p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e f u r n i t u r e and t h e l i k e l e f t a t t h e r a n c h , and f o r i n t e r e s t on s u c h amount. W e f i n d no m e r i t i n a p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t i s s u e . An e f f o r t i s made t o a t t a c k t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e award by a r g u i n g t h a t i t i s alimony and t h e r e f o r e a s e r i o u s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n arises. The c a s e was f i l e d b e f o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . A p p e l l a n t c a n n o t r e l y on r i g h t s a r i s i n g u n d e r A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , f o r u n d e r t h e T r a n s i t i o n S c h e d u l e S e c t i o n 3 any " r i g h t s , p r o c e d u r a l o r substantive, created for the f i r s t t i m e and n o t r e t r o a c t i v e . " * * * s h a l l be p r o s p e c t i v e C l o n t z v . C l o n t z , 166 Mont. 206, 531 P.2d The p r i n c i p a l a t t a c k of t h e i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o whether t h e r e were s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d on i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. A p p e l l a n t r e l i e d a n d a r g u e s e a r l y c a s e s of t h i s C o u r t c o n c e r n i n g whether o r n o t a housewife i s e n t i t l e d t o reimbursement o r damages i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n . Such a u t h o r i t y i s c l e a r l y a n a c h r o n i s t i c i n view of t h e modern a p p r o a c h t o d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s l i t i g a t i o n which t h i s C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d and which Montana's l e g i s l a t u r e h a s f o l l o w e d by a d o p t i n g t h e Uniform M a r r i a g e and Divorce A c t , C h a p t e r 3 , T i t l e 48, R.C.M. 1947. T h a t A c t a t t e m p t s t o d o away w i t h a l l of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e views and p r o c e d u r e s i n o r d e r t o a c c o m p l i s h what i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of n o t o n l y t h e c h i l d r e n , i f a n y , b u t t h e husband o r w i f e w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e t y p e o f r e l i e f t h e husband and w i f e may be s e e k i n g . Tolson v . T o l s o n , 145 Mont. 8 7 , 399 P.2d 754; Bloom v . Bloom, 150 Mont. 511, 437 P.2d 1; Hodgson v . Hodgson, 156 Mont. 469, 482 P.2d 140; L i b r a v . L i b r a , 157 Mont. 252, 484 H e r e t h e r e c o r d abounds w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l u n c o n t r o v e r t e d e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e f i s c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of r e s p o n d e n t made d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , which s u p p o r t s h e r c l a i m . W e w i l l n o t hand- c u f f t h e t r i a l c o u r t by n o t a l l o w i n g it t o make a n award it f i n d s e q u i t a b l e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e . A d m i t t e d l y it w a s d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t and would have been f o r t h i s C o u r t , t o a r r i v e a t a n e x a c t f i g u r e t o compensate r e s p o n d e n t . However, s h e d i d c o n t r i b u t e i n e x c e s s of $40,000 d u r i n g t h e s i x y e a r s o f m a r r i a g e and t h e f i n a l award amounts t o l e s s t h a n $4,000 per year. I n view of t h e f a c t a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n went t o t h e b e n e f i t o f a p p e l l a n t and h i s c h i l d r e n , t h u s f r e e i n g a p p e l l a n t of t h a t f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , w e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and conc l u s i o n s o f law. A s t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f i n t e r e s t on t h e judgment, l a n t a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 17-204, R.C.M. appel- 1 9 4 7 , i s a p p l i c a b l e and i n t e r e s t c a n b e awarded from a d a t e p r i o r t o judgment o n l y when t h e damages a r e c e r t a i n o r c a n be made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n . H e c i t e s i n s u p p o r t E s k e s t r a n d v . Wunder, 94 Mont. 5 7 , 20 P.2d 622. S e c t i o n 17-204, 1947, r e l a t e s o n l y t o damages R.C.M. and t h e award made h e r e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t f o r damages. R a t h e r , i t i s a n e q u i t a b l e amount awarded on r e i m b u r s e m e n t . I n t e r e s t was awarded from t h e f i l i n g o f t h e c l a i m and e v e n though t h e c l a i m was u n l i q u i d a t e d u n t i l t h e c o u r t r e d u c e d it t o t h e amount o f t h e award, w e c a n f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n a l l o w i n g t h e award o f i n t e r e s t t o s t a n d from t h e d a t e g r a n t e d , cons i d e r i n g t h e f a c t it i s b a s e d upon a c a s h o u t l a y made by r e s p o n d ent t h a t d i r e c t l y benefited appellant. A s c o n c e r n s t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e $934.34, t h e amount a p p e l l a n t p a i d by c h e c k t o r e s p o n d e n t f o r t h e f u r n i t u r e , e t a l , l e f t by h e r a t t h e r a n c h , l a t e r r e t u r n e d t o a p p e l l a n t on a d v i c e of counsel, t h e i n t e r e s t should n o t begin t o run u n t i l t h e d a t e o f t h e judgment. 3 3 St.Rep. Kovash v . K n i g h t , Mont . 1 54.5 P - 2 d 10911 159. Judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h a t c o u r t f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . /- %---- Hon. A r t h u r M a r t i n , s i t t i n g i n place of James Har7n. - --- ----- ------------- Jastices A - 5 - M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell s p e c i a l l y concurring: I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . Justice.

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.