MARRIAGE OF DAHL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-109 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1980 I N THE MARRIAGE OF: BEVERLY D H , AL P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, VS . ROGER DAHL, Respondent 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 , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Cascade. Honorable J o e l G. Roth, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : R o b e r t J. Ernmons, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent: Cameron Ferguson and Dola W i l s o n , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana - - S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A p r i l 2 5 , 1980 Decided: Filed: $Jfi-y'j~$&-J j #fly 1 2 1 8 94 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a d e c r e e a d j u d i c a t i n g p r o p e r t y r i g h t s , a c a s h award, and a t t o r n e y f e e s f o l l o w i n g a d i v o r c e e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, t h e Honorable J o e l G . Roth p r e s i d i n g . The i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w are: 1. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n making a d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y between t h e p a r t i e s ? 2. Did t h e c o u r t err i n awarding M r s . 3. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n awarding M r s . Dahl Dahl a t t o r n e y fees? monies borrowed by h e r from h e r f a t h e r t o pay a mortgage and m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s , when M r . Dahl was s a i d t o b e r e s p o n s i b l e and f a i l e d t o pay? The p a r t i e s i n t h i s a c t i o n w e r e m a r r i e d i n 1956. Five c h i l d r e n were b o r n of t h e m a r r i a g e , two o f whom were m i n o r s a t t h e t i m e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment on A p r i l 301 1979. I n November 1974, a d e c r e e w a s e n t e r e d g r a n t i n g t h e p a r t i e s a d i v o r c e and d e f e r r i n g m a t t e r s o f s u p p o r t and p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t pending f u r t h e r h e a r i n g s . No a p p e a l was t a k e n from t h a t d e c r e e . P r i o r t o t h e e n t r y of t h e d e c r e e , a n o r d e r w a s e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t d i r e c t i n g M r . Dahl t o pay t h e sum of $500 f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t and a l s o t o make t h e house payment. I n 1976, f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , 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 a n o r d e r w e r e e n t e r e d , p r o v i d i n g f o r s u p p o r t , c u s t o d y , and t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y . Mrs. Dahl a p p e a l e d from t h a t o r d e r , and t h i s C o u r t remanded t h e case f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. Mont. , Dahl v . Dahl ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 577 P.2d 1230, 35 St.Rep. 536. Thereafter, following a hearing, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, and judgment l on ~ p r i 3 0 , 1979. T h i s judgment made a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n ; r e q u i r e d M r . Dahl t o pay back c h i l d s u p p o r t ; d i r e c t e d t h a t h e pay M r s . D a h l f s f a t h e r c e r t a i n sums; awarded M r s . Dahl a t t o r n e y f e e s ; g r a n t e d Mrs. Dahl t h e c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d r e n ; and p r o v i d e d f o r s u p p o r t . From t h i s o r d e r M r . Dahl a p p e a l s . I n t h e e a r l i e r c a s e on a p p e a l b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t w e : (1) o r d e r e d a new t r i a l on t h e i s s u e of back s u p p o r t ; (2) d i r e c t e d t h e lower c o u r t t o make f i n d i n g s a s t o why a t t o r n e y f e e s w e r e n o t awarded; and ( 3 ) d i r e c t e d a new t r i a l on t h e i s s u e of t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y . W e found i n o u r p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n t h a t t h e r e was no competent e v i d e n c e of t h e v a l u e of some of t h e p r i n c i p a l i t e m s o f t h e m a r i t a l property, i.e., D a h l ' s Wrecking S e r v i c e and p r o p e r t y used i n connection therewith. I n a d d i t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s had been o r d e r e d t o t u r n o v e r s p e c i f i e d f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s t o a c e r t i f i e d a c c o u n t a n t approved by t h e c o u r t , t h i s w a s n e v e r done; and t h e a p p r a i s a l s u b m i t t e d by M r . D a h l ' s a c c o u n t a n t was n o t c e r t i f i e d b u t was p r e p a r e d by t h a t a c c o u n t a n t on t h e b a s i s of i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d o n l y by M r . Dahl. Following remand, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d new f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment. ~nterestingly enough, t h e p r o p e r t y was d i v i d e d e s s e n t i a l l y i n t h e same way a s before--1lrs. Dahl r e c e i v e d t h e house, and M r . Dahl re- c e i v e d t h e b u s i n e s s p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o some l i e n s . In this i n s t a n c e , however, M r . Dahl a p p e a r s a s a p p e l l a n t r a t h e r t h a n as respondent. I n t h e second h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , M r . Dahl d i d n o t a p p e a r o r s u p p l y any i n f o r m a t i o n t o a s s i s t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n r e a c h i n g a p r o p e r and j u s t s e t t l e m e n t of t h e p a r t i e s ' property. The problem t h a t c a u s e d t h e a p p e a l t o be made i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e w a s M r . D a h l t s f a i l u r e t o comply with t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s order t o supply adequate f i g u r e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e b u s i n e s s worth of h i s p r o p e r t y . This Court r-oted i n i t s e a r l i e r o p i n i o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t have competent e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h t h e v a l u e of t h e Dahl Wrecking S e r v i c e . On second h e a r i n g , M r . Dahl a g a i n f a i l e d t o supply t h e necessary records, although ordered t o do s o by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . He also failed t o return certain b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s d e l i v e r e d t o him by M r s . Dahl d e s p i t e a n agreement t o do s o . A t t h e h e a r i n g on remand, M r . Dahl f a i l e d t o s u b m i t any b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s showing what happened t o t h e b u s i n e s s assets o t h e r t h a n t h e l a n d and t h e b u i l d i n g . He failed to a p p e a r and t o t e s t i f y a t t h e h e a r i n g , a s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d . Y e t , h e now a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c i s i o n a n d , i n e f f e c t , a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o make f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g t h e b u s i n e s s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t had f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t t o t h e c o u r t a p r o p e r v a l u a t i o n f i g u r e f o r t h e b u s i n e s s , b u t on t h e b a s i s of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d , t h e c o u r t f a i r l y d i v i d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . The c o u r t found t h a t Mrs. Dahl needed t h e house t o m a i n t a i n a r e a s o n a b l e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g and p r o v i d e a home f o r t h e minor c h i l d r e n ; t h a t i n view of h e r income and e x p e n s e s i t w a s u n l i k e l y t h a t s h e would b e a b l e t o o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e s u i t a b l e h o u s i n g ; and t h a t M r . Dahl, i n view o f h i s e x p e r i e n c e and s k i l l s , was c a p a b l e of e a r n i n g s u f f i c i e n t income t o p r o v i d e f o r h e r needs. While a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n was u n f a i r b e c a u s e h i s s h a r e of t h e p a r - t i e s ' m a r i t a l a s s e t s i s i n e f f e c t r e d u c e d by t h e amount of v a r i o u s f e d e r a l and s t a t e income t a x l i e n s f i l e d a g a i n s t him, w e n o t e t h a t t h e s e l i e n s r e p r e s e n t a p p e l l a n t ' s d e l i n q u e n t f e d e r a l and s t a t e income t a x o b l i g a t i o n s p r i m a r i l y f o r t h e y e a r s 1974 t h r o u g h 1977. The p a r t i e s w e r e d i v o r c e d i n T h i s m a t t e r h a s been pending now f o r a p e r i o d of some s i x y e a r s s i n c e t h e t i m e of t h e o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e . In considering the t o t a l record i n both appeals, we f i n d t h a t t h e f a i l u r e of a p p e l l a n t Roger Dahl t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s m a t t e r i s such a s t o p r e c l u d e t h e c o u r t from a r r i v i n g a t a b e t t e r s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e t h a n h a s now been done. , Mont. Aanenson v . Aanenson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 598 P.2d 1120, 36 St.Rep. - 1525, s e t f o r t h p r i n - c i p l e s which p r o v i d e a g u i d e i n s e t t l i n g t h i s m a t t e r . In Aanenson, w e r e c o g n i z e d c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s t o be a p p l i e d , stnting : "Although t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may e q u a l l y d i v i d e t h e marital a s s e t s , such a d i s t r i b u t i o n i s n o t mandated by s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] Each c a s e must be looked a t i n d i v i d u a l l y , with an eye t o i t s unique circumstances. [Citations omitted. 1 "A D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s f a r r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s o l v i n g p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s , and i t s judgment w i l l n o t b e a l t e r e d u n l e s s c l e a r a b u s e of [Citations omitted.] The d i s c r e t i o n i s shown. t e s t f o r reviewing t h e District C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i s : Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n a c t a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment, o r exceed t h e bounds of r e a s o n i n view o f a l l of t h e c i r cumstances? [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] " Aanenson, 558 P.2d a t 1123, 36 St.Rep. a t 1528. A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law s e t f o r t h by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o s e t t l e t h i s matter, w e f i n d t h e above p r i n c i p l e s s u p p o r t i t s f i n d i n g s , and t h e y a r e affirmed. The second i s s u e b e f o r e u s c o n c e r n s a t t o r n e y f e e s . ~ i s t r i c C o u r t found t h a t r e s p o n d e n t , M r s . t Dahl, d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t income t o pay h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . f i n d i n g i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . i n t r o d u c e d by M r . The That N evidence w a s o Dahl c o n c e r n i n g h i s c u r r e n t income a l t h o u g h Mrs. Dahl t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was a good w e l d e r and mechanic. Mrs. Dahl made a showing o f n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e award of f e e s , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i r l y concluded t h a t a p p e l l a n t s h o u l d pay h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . The t h i r d i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e award t o M r s . Dahl t h e sums of $4,537.18 and $262.00 r e p r e s e n t i n g monies borrowed by h e r from h e r f a t h e r t o pay mortgage and m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s . A t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e i n A p r i l 1974, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d a p p e l l a n t t o make t h e p a r t i e s ' monthly house payments i n a d d i t i o n t o c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n . A t t h e second h e a r i n g on t h i s m a t t e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o o k j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h i s o r d e r . Appellant f a i l e d t o keep t h e s e payments c u r r e n t and M r s . Dahl w a s r e q u i r e d t o borrow n e c e s s a r y f u n d s from h e r f a t h e r t o meet t h e s e payments. Over a p e r i o d o f t i m e , h e r f a t h e r p a i d $4,537.18 t o G r e a t F a l l s F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan t o keep h i s d a u g h t e r and h e r f a m i l y l i v i n g i n t h e f a m i l y home. While a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e w a s no agreement on t h i s m a t t e r , t h e f a c t i s t h a t he had been o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t t o make t h e house payments and f a i l e d t o do s o . t h e second h e a r i n g , M r s . At D a h l ' s f a t h e r produced c a n c e l l e d c h e c k s i n t o e v i d e n c e showing how much h e had advanced i n t h e way of payments t o t h e s a v i n g s and l o a n company t o keep t h e f a m i l y i n t h e f a m i l y home. Roger ~ a h made t h e house payments f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y l two y e a r s a s o r d e r e d , b u t d e d u c t e d t h o amounts s o p a i d from what he was o r d e r e d t o pay a s c h i l d s u p p o r t . He was g i v e n f u l l c r e d i t f o r whatever payments h e a c t u a l l y made f o r e i t h e r c h i l d s u p p o r t o r payments on t h e house, d e s p i t e t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d manner i n which he made t h e s e payments. Appel- l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n v e r t e d an a l l e g e d d e f i c i e n c y a s t o t h e payments i n t o a " p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . " The t r i a l c o u r t , i n making a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n , n o t o n l y had t h e f u n c t i o n o f d i v i d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y between them, b u t a l s o t o make p r o v i s i o n f o r and a l l o c a t e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e payment o f d e b t s and o b l i g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s u c h property. A p p e l l a n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o make t h e house payment r e l a t e d t o p r o p e r t y awarded t o M r s . Dahl--the house. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t have t o make t h e $4,537.18 payment b e c a u s e h i s f a t h e r - i n - l a w a g a i n s t him f o r such amount. point. h a s no c l a i m T h i s argument i s b e s i d e t h e The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t o r d e r a p p e l l a n t t o pay h i s father-in-law, respondent, M r s . b u t o r d e r e d t h e s e payments t o be made t o Dahl, s o t h a t s h e c a n l i v e up t o a n a g r e e - ment s h e h a s w i t h h e r f a t h e r t o pay t h e s e amounts back t o him. A p p e l l a n t ' s argument begs t h e i s s u e b e c a u s e Dahl had been o r d e r e d t o make t h e house payments and t o pay M r s . ~ a h l alimony, which h e h a s f a i l e d t o do. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t c i t e s W i l l i a m s v . Budke (19801, Mont. , 6 0 6 P.2d 515, 37 St.Rep. 228, a l l e g i n g t h a t t h i s c a s e s u p p o r t s h i s argument t h a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s remedy was t o u s e t h e s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o c o l l e c t i n g on judgments f o r accrued obligations. W i l l i a m s does n o t stand f o r t h e prin- c i p l e t h a t a p e r s o n s e e k i n g a judgment on a d e l i n q u e n t o b l i g a t i o n i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o o n l y one remedy. The C o u r t i n t h a t c a s e n o t e d t h a t t h e r e a r e v a r i o u s means of e n f o r c i n g o r d e r s d i r e c t i n g t h e payment of s u p p o r t money and o b l i g a t i o n s of d i v o r c e . I t i s proper f o r t h e District C o u r t , a s was done h e r e , t o d e t e r m i n e how much w a s owed and t o e n t e r a judgment f o r s u c h amount; i n s o d o i n g t h e c o u r t a v o i d s d u p l i c i t y of p r o c e e d i n g s . A s n o t e d i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n of r e s p o n d e n t ' s b r i e f , t h i s h a s been a l o n g d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g t o s a y t h e l e a s t . p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d i n 1974; i t i s now 1980. The It is t i m e t h a t t h e m a t t e r be l a i d t o rest and t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f i n a l l y concluded i n t h e i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e c i d e d t h e i s s u e s a p p e z l e d flom and i t s d e c i s i o n i s hereby a f f i r m e d . I W e concur: PA&$% ief Justice 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.