CICINIA v CICINIA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13393 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 ELEANOR H. CICINIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, GAETANO T. CICINIA, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Honorable Robert Keller, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Moore and Lyrnpus, Kalispell, Montana James D. Moore argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Warden, Walterskirchen & Christiansen, Kalispell, Montana Gary R. Christiansen argued, Kalispell, Montana Submitted: March 14, 1977 Decided : JUR 2 e Filed: 4977 Mr. J u s r i c e Gene 3 . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Flathead County, s i t t i n g without a j u r y , Hon. Robert S . K e l l e r , D i s t r i c t Judge p r e s i d i n g , g r a n t e d M r k T i FF sac e. i n an a c t i o n summary judgment t o L U g - alimony p r o v i s i o n s of a f o r e i g n d i v o r c e decree. Eleanor C i c i n i a o b t a i n e d a d e f a u l t d i v o r c e decree on grounds of d e s e r t i o n , i n c o r p o r a t i n g a v o l u n t a r y p r o p e r t y s e t t l e ment agreement p a r t of which gave h e r $75 p e r week, payable each Monday f o r t h e balance of h e r l i f e , u n l e s s she remarried. T h i s amount was t o i n c l u d e c h i l d support and minor medical c a r e u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e n reached m a j o r i t y . The p a r t i e s were married i n 1940 and t h e decree n i s i was dated February 25, 1965, i n t h e s t a t e of New J e r s e y . Defendant remarried and adopted t h e c h i l d r e n of h i s p r e s e n t w i f e and moved t o K a l i s p e l l , Montana i n 1973. Defendant o p e r a t e s a b u s i n e s s e n t i t l e d "Northwest S p o r t s , Inc.". Defendant d e f a u l t e d i n h i s alimony payments. On June 27, 1974, p l a i n t i f f brought an a c t i o n i n New J e r s e y t o determine a r r e a r a g e , i n c r e a s e alimony, and determine a t t o r n e y f e e s . De- fendant f i l e d two a f f i d a v i t s i n h i s b e h a l f i n a d d i t i o n t o a deposition. He was r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g by a New J e r s e y law f i r m b u t d i d n o t appear i n person. The New J e r s e y c o u r t on A p r i l 2 5 , 1975 g r a n t e d judgment i n t h e sum of $3,995. denied. P l a i n t i f f ' s prayer f o r a d d i t i o n a l alimony was On June 23, 1975, t h e New J e r s e y c o u r t awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount of $2,000 and $196.80 i n c o s t s . judgment was n o t appealed i n New J e r s e y . The New J e r s e y The p r e s e n t a c t i o n was f i l e d i n Montana t o e n f o r c e t h e New J e r s e y judgment on September 15, 1975. Defendant contends t h e judgment cannot be enforced i n Montana a s i t contravenes t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s of defendant and i s a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y of t h e s t a t e of Montana. Defendant a l s o p e t i t i o n s t h e Montana c o u r t t o modify t h e New J e r s e y d e c r e e p r o s p e c t i v e l y and r e t r o a c t i v e l y . I n t h i s regard, defendant speaks t o t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e "decree n i s i " of February 25, 1965, y e t t h e record i n d i c a t e d t h i s decree was made f i n a l May 26, 1965. Hon. Robert S. K e l l e r , d i s t r i c t judge, e n t e r e d summary judgment May 5 , 1976, under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., a f t e r b r i e f s were submitted and o r a l argument h e a r d , f o r p l a i n t i f f on t h e New J e r s e y judgment w i t h t h e memo: "The Defendant r a i s e s no f a c t u a l i s s u e s . The answer t o t h e complaint, c o n s i s t s of c o n c l u s i o n s , which r a i s e i s s u e s of law, and a r e r e s a d j u d i c a t a . "The ' c o u n t e r - p e t i t i o n ' t o t h e complaint i s something t h i s Court does n o t understand." Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e summary judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and p r e s e n t s t h e s e i s s u e s t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. Can summary judgment be e n t e r e d on a f o r e i g n d e c r e e which enforcement of contravenes p u b l i c p o l i c y o r laws of Montana? 2. Does f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t compel enforcement o f a f o r e i g n d e c r e e t h a t l a c k s f i n a l i t y i n New J e r s e y ? 4. Can a decree of d i v o r c e i s s u e d i n a n o t h e r s t a t e be modified i n Montana? Defendant appeared by counsel and a f f i d a v i t and d e p o s i t i o n i n defense of h i s p o s i t i o n a t t h e c o u r t h e a r i n g i n New J e r s e y , which denied him r e l i e f on A p r i l 25, 1975. He d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e f i n a l i t y of t h a t c o u r t ' s judgment on which t h e h e a r i n g was brought o r c h a l l e n g e t h e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n , nor d i d h e a p p e a l from t h a t c o u r t ' s judgment. W n o t e h e r e t h a t a t a l l times p e r t i n e n t h e r e t o , defendant e The New J e r s e y h a s been v i g o r o u s l y r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . judgments were f i n a l judgments rendered by a c o u r t which had proper j u r i s d i c t i o n o n l y a f t e r an a d v e r s a r y proceeding. The Montana a c t i o n merely seeks a judgment based upon t h e f i n a l judgments of t h e New J e r s e y c o u r t . The d o c t r i n e s of r e s j u d i c a t a and c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l b a r t h e r e l i t i g a t i o n of t h e m a t t e r s determined by t h e New J e r s e y c o u r t . The d o c t r i n e of f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t a l l o w s t h e enforcement of t h e judgment. A r t . I V , S e c t i o n '1, United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ; S e c t i o n 931001-20, R.C.M. 1947; 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments $ 5 1226,1227,1230. The t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e p l e a d i n g s of defendant r a i s e no f a c t i s s u e s b u t u l t i m a t e i s s u e s of law which a r e r e s adjudicata. Judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . /.' W_e_ Concur : 'r 1 ,.._4' . Chief J u s t i c e * A Justice r -2 ,, " 4

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.