MALLEY v MALLEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 80-24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 DAVID EUGENE MALLEY, Respondent and Appellant, -vsPATRICIA MARIE MALLEY, Petitioner and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court-Of t h e 'First Judicial District, In.and For the County of Lewis and Clark, The Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: David E. Malley, Pro Se, Helena, MJntana For Respondent : William McCarvel, Spokane, Washington Submitted on Briefs: July 10, 1980 ~ecided:NOV Filed: ROV 18 .fl.-& Clerk 1 8 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . S h e a d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . David Eugene M a l l e y , a p p e a r i n g p r o s e t a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r of p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n e n t e r e d by t h e L e w i s and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t C o u r t Because there is no upon the dissolution transcript of this of h i s marriage. we hearing, are c o m p e l l e d t o v a c a t e t h e judgment and o r d e r a n o t h e r h e a r i n g s o t h a t a r e c o r d c a n be made. The w i f e , P a t r i c i a M a r i e M a l l e y , f i l e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e on A p r i l 3 , 1 9 7 9 . The c o u p l e had b e e n m a r r i e d s i n c e J u n e 2 6 , 1 9 7 5 and had no c h i l d r e n . had been previously married, previous marriage. any of the Neither other's and Each p a r t y , h o w e v e r , each had t h e wife nor children. The children t h e husband is husband by a adopted a sales r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and t h e w i f e i s a s e c r e t a r y . The husband did not f o r m a l l y respond p e t i t i o n for dissolution, but participated hearings. the wife's i n two t r i a l c o u r t The w i f e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t t r i a l and i s There is pending now r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l i n t h i s a p p e a l . before to u s a motion t o d i s m i s s by w i f e ' s h u s b a n d h a s f a i l e d t o " c i t e any p l e a d i n g , counsel because t h e evidence, or t r i a l t e s t i m o n y which would s e r v e a s a b a s i s f o r h i s a r g u m e n t . " The wife's the counsel wants us to dismiss this appeal husband h a s n o t r a i s e d any r e v i e w a b l e i s s u e s . because But t h e i s s u e he r a i s e s ( t h e f a i r n e s s of t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n d e c r e e ) can o n l y be below. r e v i e w e d where t h e r e is a record of t h e proceedings I t would be u n f a i r t o t h e e x t r e m e t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l and d e n y any r e l i e f t o t h e h u s b a n d w h e r e t h e f a i l u r e t o h a v e a r e c o r d c a n n o t be l a i d a t h i s d o o r s t e p . W should n o t have t o e remind a s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y t o l i t i g a t i o n i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h a t t h e judgment o b t a i n e d i s p l a c e d i n j e o p a r d y where t h e r e i s no record of t h e proceedings. F o l l o w i n g t h e two h e a r i n g s c o n c e r n i n g a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , t h e w i f e t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , and t h e h u s b a n d , p r o s e , s u b m i t t e d p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . The t r i a l c o u r t v i r t u a l l y a d o p t e d v e r b a t i m t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s p r o p o s e d by c o u n s e l f o r t h e w i f e . this appeal property that the division. trial court claims He The h u s b a n d now c o n t e n d s i n entered an inequitable "pocket is now his A l t h o u g h he h a s n o t f i l e d a b r i e f empty." i n t h i s Court, he a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o r e v i e w t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and remand case the for a redetermination of the property distribution. we Unfortunately, c o n t e n t i o n s because But that is not a the trial cannot record husband's ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 204, 562 P.2d review the is necessary fault. In husband's t o do t h i s . Matter of Geary 821, w e s t r e s s e d t h e need f o r a t r i a l record: "Without a t r a n s c r i p t , t h i s Court is placed i n t h e p o s i t i o n of a t t e m p t i n g t o r e c o n s t r u c t a r e c o r d on a p p e a l . Such a t a s k b e i n g o f t e n i m p o s s i b l e and u n n e c e s s a r y , t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l becomes i l l u s o r y , a r i g h t w i t h o u t s u b s t a n c e . " That p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s equally here. o f G u l l e t t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. contested custody case I n Matter of Guardianship 1 3 2 , 566 P.2d 3 9 6 , w e r e v e r s e d a because the hearing had recorded s o a s t o e n a b l e e f f e c t i v e a p p e l l a t e review. not been W e noted i n G u l l e t t e , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s by s t a t u t e , a c o u r t o f record, and t h i s proceedings. 80-118, implies Recently, that a in Decided October 8 , record Schneider v. will be Ostwald k e p t of the ( C a u s e No. 1980), we s e t aside a t r i a l court contempt o r d e r b e c a u s e t h e contempt o f c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s were not recorded. W must r e a c h e t h e same r e s u l t h e r e . The r e c o r d s i l e n t a s t o why a c o u r t r e p o r t e r was n o t p r e s e n t . is But r e a s o n s aside, the f a i l u r e t o record the property d i s t r i b u t i o n hearings has effectively denied the husband appellate review of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. The judgment full hearing, with i s v a c a t e d and t h e c a s e remanded f o r proceedings to be reported s o t h a t a p p e l l a t e review can reach t h e i s s u e s . in a a manner Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison dissenting: I dissent. Viewing the record here, we have an appellant who has previously had experience in a divorce proceeding, appearing pro se in this case, and now putting the trial court in error for failing to distribute the property properly. The majority rely on our previous holding in In Matter of Guardianship of Gullette (1977), 173 Mont. 132, 566 P.2d 396, a case involving the guardianship of children. I find our holding in that case clearly distinguishable. Here, appellant was offered a full and complete opportunity by the District Court to present his case, to file objections and to have the court consider findings of fact and conclusions of law, prior to the District Court's adoption of same. As I understand the law, failure to object to the court's findings and conclusions bars the raising of the issue on appeal. What the majority holds is that whenever a court reporter is not present, the case will be reversed for lack of a record to be reviewed. This is directly contrary to the presumption of correctness of the judgment of the District Court. Here, appellant went through two hearings without objections and now seeks reversal on a technicality. I would affirm. Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell dissenting: I concur in the foregoing dissent of Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison. Chief 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.