MARRIAGE OF JONES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-171 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MAUREEN F. JONES, Petitioner and Appellant, -vsALAN R. JONES, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Jefferson, The Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Smith Law Firm, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Luxan and Murfitt, Helena, Montana Joscelyn, Honzel & Melby, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: October 23, 1980 QEC 7 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by t h e p e t i t i o n e r from s u p p l e m e n t a l f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , J e f f e r s o n County, t h e Honorable James D . Freebourn presiding. A p p e l l a n t i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e , d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y , a p p o r t i o n m e n t of d e b t s and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c h i l d c u s t o d y , v i s i t a t i o n and s u p p o r t . On August 1 3 , 1979, a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n w a s e n t e r e d ; t h e c o u r t , however, r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on a l l o t h e r i s s u e s . The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e ment on August 6 , 1979, d i s t r i b u t i n g p r o p e r t i e s , a p p o r t i o n i n g d e b t s , g r a n t i n g a p p e l l a n t c u s t o d y o f t h e minor c h i l d , s e t t i n g v i s i t a t i o n and f i x i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t . On November 1 6 , 1979, r e s p o n d e n t b r o u g h t a motion t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e agreement i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n a l d e c r e e . A p p e l l a n t , however, objected t o adoption of t h e v i s i t a t i o n provisions. A f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e matter, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a s u p p l e m e n t a l d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n , i n c o r p o r a t i n g i n t o t o t h e terms o f t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. In s u p p o r t of i t s d e c r e e , t h e c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w : "I. FINDINGS - O F FACT "1. T h a t t h e P r o p e r t y S e t t l e m e n t Agreement e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e p a r t i e s on o r a b o u t August 6 , 1979, i s f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e and n o t u n c o n s c i o n a b l e ; t h a t t h e s a m e makes a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e a p p o r t i o n m e n t of t h e i r d e b t s , t h e c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d , c h i l d s u p p o r t , and v i s i t a t i o n ; and t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s a i d agreement as t o c u s t o d y , c h i l d s u p p o r t and v i s i t a t i o n a r e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d . "2. T h a t t h e same s h o u l d be approved a n d - i n corporated i n t h e decree herein. "11. CONCLUSIONS - O LAW F "1. T h a t t h e P r o p e r t y S e t t l e m e n t Agreement made and e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e p a r t i e s i s f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e and i s n o t u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . "2. T h a t t h e terms o f s a i d agreement a s t o c h i l d c u s t o d y , c h i l d s u p p o r t and v i s i t a t i o n are i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d . " 3 . T h a t t h e same s h o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a decree herein." A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement w i t h o u t making s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t r e g a r d i n g t h e impact of t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i d e d f o r on t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d ? 2. Is t h e f i n d i n g by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement a r e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d , c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s and u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g t o p e r m i t e x a m i n a t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t ' s a t t o r n e y ? Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P., provides t h a t i n a l l a c t i o n s t r i e d upon t h e f a c t s w i t h o u t a j u r y t h e c o u r t i s under a n o b l i g a t i o n t o i s s u e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w . The p u r p o s e of t h e s e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i s t o p r o v i d e a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. (1978) , Mont. , M a r r i a g e of Barren 580 P.2d 936, 35 St.Rep. 891. T h i s f o u n d a t i o n need n o t c o n s i s t of a m u l t i t u d e of e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t s , b u t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t must s e t f o r t h a r e c o r d a t i o n of t h e e s s e n t i a l and d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t s upon which t h e c o u r t r e s t e d i t s c o n c l u s i o n s of law and w i t h o u t which t h e judgment would l a c k s u p p o r t . Barron, supra. See M a r r i a g e of S e c t i o n 40-4-217, MCA, r e l a t e s t o v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s and i m p l i e s a s t a n d a r d t h a t t h e s e r i g h t s be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d . To a s s u r e t h a t t h i s s t a n d a r d i s complied w i t h , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t examine a l l p e r t i n e n t and r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s p r e s e n t e d a t trial. I n t h i s instance, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered a f i n d i n g of f a c t and a c o n c l u s i o n of law t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement was i n t h e " b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . " The c o u r t i n s o d o i n g , however, f a i l e d t o s e t f o r t h a r e c o r d a t i o n o f t h e e s s e n t i a l and d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t s upon which i t r e s t e d i t s c o n c l u s i o n . Adequate f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e e s s e n t i a l f o r w i t h o u t them t h i s C o u r t i s f o r c e d t o s p e c u l a t e a s t o t h e reasons f o r the District Court's decision. i s n o t a h e a l t h y b a s i s f o r review. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. Such a s i t u a t i o n E s t a t e of Craddock 8 , 11, 566 P.2d 45, 46. W acknowledge t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t need o n l y s e t e f o r t h t h e ultimate f a c t s a s a foundation f o r i t s conclusions of law. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h i s c a s e , however, f a i l e d t o s e t f o r t h any s u p p o r t i n g f a c t s and m e r e l y made a c o n c l u s o r y s t a t e m e n t w i t h no r e f l e c t i o n a t a l l a s t o t h e e v i d e n t i a r y basis f o r its decision. I n t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s do n o t r e f l e c t t h o s e f a c t o r s upon which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t based i t s c o n c l u s i o n - - t h a t the p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement, a s t o v i s i t a t i o n , i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e child--we c a n n o t p r o c e e d on t h e a p p e l - l a t e l e v e l t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n . With t h i s b e i n g t h e c a s e , t h i s p r o c e e d i n g must be r e t u r n e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e purpose of making t h e r e q u i r e d f a c t u a l findings. A s t o t h e o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y of Mark Murphy, r e s p o n - d e n t ' s f i r s t a t t o r n e y i n t h i s a c t i o n (who l a t e r w i t h d r e w ) , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e d t o a l l o w h i s e x a m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y s o u g h t was p r o t e c t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y c l i e n t privilege. A p p e l l a n t s o u g h t t o adduce t e s t i m o n y from Murphy a s t o various matters, including h i s observations t h a t respondent made d i s p l a y s of temper d i r e c t e d a t and i n t h e p r e s e n c e of a p p e l l a n t and t h e minor c h i l d . The a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e , s e c t i o n 26-1-803, MCA, p r o t e c t s communications made by t h e c l i e n t i n t h e c o u r s e of the professional relationship. I f a s t a t e m e n t i s made t o a number of p e r s o n s o r w i t h i n t h e i r h e a r i n g , however, i t i s n o t c o n f i d e n t i a l and, t h e r e f o r e , i s n o t p r i v i l e g e d . v . Montana Bank and T r u s t Co. Ludwig ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 109 Mont. 477, 500, 98 P.2d 377, 388; see a l s o S t a t e v. Wilder ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 2 Wash.App. 296, 529 P.2d 1109; F i s h e r v . M r . ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 215 Kan. H a r o l d ' s H a i r Lab, I n c . 515, 527 P.2d 1026; Nevada Tax Commission v . Hicks ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 73 Nev. 115, 310 P.2d 852; Anderson v . Thomas ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 108 Utah 252, 159 P.2d 142; Ver Bryck v . Luby ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 67 Cal.App.2d 842, 155 P.2d 706. I n t h i s c a s e , t h a t t e s t i m o n y of Murphy, which r e l a t e s t o c o n v e r s a t i o n s and m a t t e r s o c c u r r i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e of Murphy, r e s p o n d e n t , and a t h i r d p e r s o n , i s n o t p r i v i l e g e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n e x c l u d i n g i t . The d e c r e e o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s v a c a t e d as i t relates to visitation rights. The c a s e i s remanded f o r a n o t h e r h e a r i n g , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion. , , ' Justice We concur: %9 @&g &. -# Chief Justice C1yd-a /j Justices ' ,

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.