LASTER v LASTER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-376 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RODNEY LASTER, Petitioner and Appellant, and JUNE M. LASTER, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Boscher and Boschert, Billings, Montana Alan J. Lerner argued, Big Fork, Montana - For Respondent: Berger, Sinclair and Nelson, Billings, Montana James J. Sinclair argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: Decided : APR 15!!I ?$ Filed: $ )&J',l- / Clerk January 13, 1982 iara $ 5 1992 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 Court. The h u s b a n d , entered by the Rodney Court District a p p e a l s from a judgment Laster, of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Y e l l o w s t o n e County, i n which t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e was dissolved, the marital a w a r d e d $ 3 5 0 p e r month estate divided, i n maintenance, and the wife a s well a s attorney f e e s and c o s t s . The L a s t e r s w e r e m a r r i e d f o r t w e n t y - n i n e had t h r e e c h i l d r e n , two a r e now a d u l t s . severely disabled, total care. years. The t h i r d c h i l d was b o t h p h y s i c a l l y and m e n t a l l y , The w i f e q u i t h e r They requiring s e c r e t a r i a l job i n 1956 t o c a r e f o r h e r d i s a b l e d c h i l d , who l i v e d t o t h e a g e o f t e n . The h u s b a n d h u s b a n d moved to and w i f e Montana separated in April i n December 1979. 1979 w h i l e The the wife stayed i n Pennsylvania. After t h e i r separation the wife obtained a job a s a S h e i s now f i f t y - e i g h t f l o o r l a d y i n a garment shop. o l d , and h e r g r o s s s a l a r y is $406.20 The District Court e v e r y two w e e k s . determined s a l a r y i s $ 3 0 8 e v e r y o t h e r week. years that the wife's net In arriving a t t h i s figure t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b t r a c t e d from t h e g r o s s s a l a r y a l l o f the itemized deductions (federal, state and local taxes, s o c i a l s e c u r i t y and u n i o n d u e s ) t a k e n o u t o f t h e w i f e ' s b i weekly pay check. periods, and By m u l t i p l y i n g $ 3 8 8 t i m e s t w e n t y - s i x dividing by twelve, t h e District Court pay found t h a t t h e w i f e ' s a v e r a g e m o n t h l y s p e n d a b l e incorne i s $ 6 6 7 . The District Court e x p e n s e s t o t a l $806. rented month. a mobile home found that the wife's monthly To s u p p l e m e n t h e r i n c o m e , t h e w i f e h a s owned by the parties for $165 per The w i f e i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r f u l l r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s since will s h e began receive a her job a f t e r small t h e age of pension of $33.60 fifty-f ive. per month She if she works u n t i l s h e is s i x t y - s e v e n . The h u s b a n d i s f i f t y - o n e years old. He has n ~ u l t i p l e s c l e r o s i s b u t i t is i n r e m i s s i o n a n d t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o n t h e r e c o r d t h a t i t i m p a i r s h i s a b i l i t y t o work. p r e s e n t l y works f o r t h e The h u s b a n d f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a s a n OSHA com- p l i a n c e o f f i c e r i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. The husband's income was $27,854 in 1981, The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t i n 1 9 8 0 t h e $25,608 i n 1980. husband's gross spendable income was $1,865 per month. The D i s t r i c t Court a r r i v e d a t t h i s f i g u r e by d e d u c t i n g o n l y t h e federal taxes by twelve. spendable from t h e h u s b a n d ' s its determination of Unlike income, g r o s s income and d i v i d i n g the District t h e w i f e ' s monthly Court did not look to monthly d e d u c t i o n s t a k e n o u t of t h e h u s b a n d ' s paycheck. District Court also found that the husband's the The fiancée c o n t r i b u t e s $100 p e r week a n d t h i s a d d i t i o n a l i n c o m e would serve t o o f f s e t f u t u r e l i v i n g expenses. In addition t o supporting himself, t h e husband p o r t s h i s f i a n c e e and h i s f i a n c e e ' s d a u g h t e r . were expenses $1,865 found spendable to be income $1,535 and per H i s monthly month. subtracting sup- Taking the $1,535 the in e x p e n s e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was a b l e t o p a y o v e r $300 i n m a i n t e n a n c e t o t h e w i f e . The h u s b a n d h a s t h r e e r e t i r e m e n t p r o g r a m s , b u t n o t m a t u r e d and o n e n o t v e s t e d . A l l of t h e payments o f t h e f i r s t two p l a n s were made d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' Under the first plan, the husband will two v e s t e d receive marriage. $750 per inonth when he r e a c h e s t h e a g e o f plan, the reaches will husband the age of contributing to a sixty. receive $304 fifty-nine. third plan The which Under per month second when he is p r e s e n t l y husband will the vest in approxi- mately f i v e years. Excluding benefits, $73,580, value the District of the husband's Court valued l i a b i l i t i e s a t $18,359.27, a t $55,220.73. home the in the marital assets a t and n e t m a r i t a l estate The m a j o r d i s p u t e d v a l u a t i o n s a r e t h e f a m i l y Pennsylvania marriage. retirement and the jewelry acquired during the E v i d e n c e of t h e s e v a l u a t i o n s was i n d e f i n i t e s i n c e a p p r a i s a l f i g u r e s were b a s e d m o s t l y on t h e p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s of the parties, formed t h r o u g h informal inquiries or reli- a n c e on amounts o f i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e . Except for the retirement benefits, the District C o u r t d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 78% t o t h e w i f e and 2 2 % t o t h e h u s b a n d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t l i s t e d i t s r e a s o n s f o r s u c h a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n stat:.ng that for the past three years the wife has been solely r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s o n t h e f a m i l y home and ten-acre ridge, tract. This, coupled with t h e l e n g t h of t h e mar- t h e d e v o t i o n of t h e w i f e t o t h e c a r e of h e r d i s a b l e d c h i l d , t h e w i f e ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o u n d e r t a k e employment a t t h e age of fifty-six bilities, y e a r s and justified disproportionate the t h e d i s p a r i t y of distribution. distribution, t h e wife a one-third the involved, District capa- equalize Court this awarded s h a r e i n e a c h of t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e - inent p l a n s r a t h e r t h a n t h e o n e - h a l f After To earning considering the share she requested. nature of the property i n t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y awarded t o t h e w i f e was n o t income found produciny there but was incoiae reducing, not sufficient the property ~ i s t r i c tCourt in the marital e s t a t e t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e r e d s o n a b l e n e e d s of t h e w i f e . District Court further found that the husband was The finan- c i a l l y a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e $350 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e w i f e and awarded h e r t h a t amount u n t i l h e r d e a t h , u n t i l s h e remarries, o r u n t i l t h e husband r e t i r e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r awarded t h e w i f e $541 f o r h e r e x p e n s e s o f t r a v e l i n g t o Montana and s t a y i n g h e r e d u r i n g the t r i a l . did not ordered Finally, have the t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e sufficient husband to funds pay to pay in $1,050 attorney fees reasonable and attorney fees. Four b a s i c i s s u e s h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i t s e q u i t a b l e apportionment of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ? Whether 2. the District Court erred in awarding maintenance t o t h e wife? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e wife a p o r t i o n of t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s ? 4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s t o t h e w i f e ? The husband r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e basic four: 1. the Whether income o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by c o n s i d e r i n g the husband's f i a n c e e i n awarding maintenance t o t h e wife. 2. Whether the husband's r i g h t t o equal protection was v i o l a t e d by a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a s h a r e o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t benef its. 3. Whether the District Court's judgment a is n u l l i t y s i n c e it d i d n o t s t a t e i n its f i n d i n g s of f a c t s t h a t the m a r r i a g e was irretrievably broken or that one of the p a r t i e s was d o m i c i l e d i n M o n t a n a . The h u s b a n d 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 a b u s e d its discretion because a 78%-22% p r o p e r t y distribution is p e r se i n e q u i t a b l e and b e c a u s e t h e v a l u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p l a c e d o n t h e m a i n m a r i t a l a s s e t s w e r e b a s e d on s p e c u l a t i v e I t should be noted t h a t and incompetent e v i d e n c e . 22% p r o p o r t i o n does not t h e 78%- include consideration of t r i c t Court's division of the Dis- the husband's retirement benefits and is t h e r e f o r e m i s l e a d i n g . In determining discretion, the whether standard for a trial review court abused is w h e t h e r the its trial c o u r t a c t e d 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 or exceeded the . -, 6 3 5 P.2d r i a g e of Martens of 1308, 38 St.Rep. ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d u t y u n d e r MCA, reason resulting I n re t h e Marriage o f Creon substantial injustice. - Mont bounds , 1828; in (1981), I n r e Mar- 6 3 7 P.2d 523, 38 s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), is t o c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t o r s t h e r e i n a n d t h e n d i v i d e t h e property equitably. An e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n d o e s n o t n e c e s - s a r i l y mean a n e q u a l d i v i s i o n . A s h a s b e e n n o t e d many t i m e s by t h i s C o u r t , and most r e c e n t l y i n M a r t e n s : the -" ' A l t h o u g h - D i s t r i c t C o u r t -may e q u a l l y divide the marital assets, such a distribuMCA t i o n i s n o t m a n d a t e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-202, S e c t i o n 40-4-202 i s f l e x i b l e and i t v e s t s a good d e a l o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court W e h a v e s t a t e d , b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e adoption of the s t a t u t e , t h a t each c a s e must be looked a t i n d i v i d u a l l y , w i t h an .' ( C i t a eye t o its unique circumstances t i o n s omitted.) I n R e M a r r i a g e o f Aanenson . . . ~-~ ... .. In Finding of extensive reasons for property: t h e w i f e h a s been s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r mortgage payments on t h e marriage, F a c t No. 17, giving the District the wife 78% of Court gave the marital f a m i l y home s i n c e 1 9 7 9 , t h e l e n g t h o f t h e devotion of t h e wife the t o her disabled c h i l d , and t h e g r e a t d i s p a r i t y i n e a r n i n g c a p a b i l i t y . The D i s t r i c t Court an recognized that the wife was receiving unusually l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and t o e q u a l i z e t h e s i t u a t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t award t h e w i f e a s much of the retirement d i v i s i o n of benefits as s h e had retirement benefits requested. If the is c o n s i d e r e d , t h e wife in a c t u a l i t y i s r e c e i v i n g l e s s t h a n 78% o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . C l e a r l y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court considered t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, and used v e r y c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment i n d i s t r i b u t i n g the property. The husband n e x 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 d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e t o p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e the marital estate. While i t is t r u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t g i v e n t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e on which t o b a s e i t s v a l u a tions, the D i s t r i c t Court's determinations stand unless they are M.H.Civ.P.; In re nothing the record in clearly Marriage to of of values erroneous. Creon, show that Rule supra. its will 52(a), There valuations is were c l e a r l y erroneous. A D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award o f i n accordance with 2 8 3 , MCA. the m a i n t e n a n c e must b e made factors set forth in s e c t i o n 40-4- I t is w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a spouse seeking maintenance " l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t property" t o provide for her need, "sufficient property" means income producing, not income 40-4-203(l)(a), riage of St.Rep. property. the Marriage 97, 37 S t . R e p . - (1981), 387; -, Mont. of See section Herron (1980), I n r e t h e Mar- 6 3 3 P.2d 1198, 38 1515. n a t u r e of section wife, , re 6 0 8 P.2d Bowman Here, matter In MCA; , - Mont. consuming District the the property 40-4-203, how involved The MCA. favorable Court the carefully and the District considered factors listed Court found property distribution such a d i s t r i b u t i o n cannot the substitute in that no to the was completely for maintenance. While tenance, agree that the wife requires some main- it must be noted t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court improperly calculated District we the Court husband's looked monthly only to spendable the federal taxes The deducted It failed to consider from t h e h u s b a n d ' s monthly paycheck. other deductions, income. such a s s t a t e taxes, r e t i r e m e n t payments, h e a l t h and l i f e i n s u r a n c e payments and u n i o n d u e s , i n d e t e r mining t h e husband's monthly spendable income. This error is n o t c a u s e f o r remand, however, s i n c e t h e husband is s t i l l a b l e t o p a y $350 p e r month i n m a i n t e n a n c e . Under Court, section in determining 40-4-203(2)(f), MCA, the t h e arnount o f m a i n t e n a n c e , District must con- s i d e r t h e f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y o f t h e spouse paying maintenance t o m e e t h i s own n e e d s w h i l e m e e t i n g t h e n e e d s o f h i s s p o u s e . husband's When the the figures used rnonthly s p e n d a b l e than monthly deductions by the incorne District seems t o originally calculated. be are subtracted Court, the $300 less Nevertheless, incorne w h i c h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t u s e from husband's per month t h e husband h a s in determining his s p e n d a b l e ~ n o n t h l y income--namely, his fiancée, his m o b i l e home. tax Taking rebate, r e c e i v e d by t h e h u s b a n d , the mobile the home, fee his t h e $401if p e r month and t h e $165 p e r month is it for f i a n c e e , t h e $1,286 t a x r e f u n d apparent that s t i l l a b l e t o pay t h e $350 p e r month District c o n t r i b u t i o n s by rental into consideration c o n t r i b u t e d by t h e h u s b a n d ' s for and the Court's miscalculation rental husband the fee is i n maintenance. is, therefore, The harmless error. The (1981) income husband of Mont the contends . -, that 631 P.2d husband's under 697, Duffey v. 38 St.Rep. fiancée cannot Duffey 1105, t h e be used in It deals deter- m i n i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s a b i l i t y t o pay. Duffey is not on point here. with the c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a p r e s e n t w i f e ' s income i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e husband t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t . This Court trial court's has p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d and a p p r o v e d a c a l c u l a t i o n of "family" net income based on t h e e a r n i n g s of t h e husband and h i s f u t u r e w i f e . T h i s f i g u r e was used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e f u t u r e a b i l i t y o f pay m a i n t e n a n c e . 1 8 0 Mont. See, 40, 588 P.2d t h e Cromwell c a s e . t h e husband I n t h e M a r r i a g e o f Cromwell 1010. to (1979), W s e e no r e a s o n n o t t o f o l l o w e The income o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s f i a n c e e may, t i ~ e r e f o r e , be u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e h u s b a n d ' s future finan- cial status. The husband also contends that the District Court e r r e d by a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e $ 1 , 0 5 0 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and $541 in costs. Under given section discretion to 40-4-110, award a MCA, a reasonable District amount Court is in attorney fees and ceeding costs and incurred after prior entry ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. to of judgment. 628 P.2d , a pro- Wilson v . Bean cornmencernent 287, In 38 S t . R e p . of 7 5 1 , we s e t down t h e s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w i n g t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s : " I n o r d e r t o be awarded f e e s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, t h e p e t i t i o n i n g p a r t y nus st make a showing of n e c e s s i t y . The award m u s t be r e a s o n a b l e , and m u s t be b a s e d Reasonableness is on c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e . shown by means o f a h e a r i n g a l l o w i n g f o r o r a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e x h i b i t s , and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine. The award w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d by t h i s C o u r t i f i t is s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . (Citations omitted.) 628 P.2d a t 289. . . .. . . . ." Here, the t e s t i m o n y was p r e s e n t e d and n e c e s s i t y shown f o r award o f submitted traveled Court's attorney fees. showing to the Montana award of costs to uncontested An the contest attorney wife a f f i d a v i t was incurred this case. and costs fees when The is, she District therefore, s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . The husband contends next that the District Court e r r e d by a w a r d i n g t o t h e w i f e o n e - t h i r d o f t h e b e n e f i t s from each of t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t p l a n s . The husband c l a i m s t h a t s u c h an award is an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e large amount of light of amount the property a l s o contends t h a t retirement of by benefits, distributed to the m a i n t e n a n c e awarded. awarding the wife a wife and in The h u s b a n d portion t h e D i s t r i c t Court v i o l a t e d of his his right t o e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n under t h e laws. The District Court's award of c a n n o t i n i t s e l f be c o n s i d e r e d u n f a i r . explicitly stated that t h e nusband r e t i r e s . maintenance In l i g h t of retirement benefits The D i s t r i c t C o u r t would discontinue when t h e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u p p o r t i n g an award o f m a i n t e n a n c e h e r e , the s u b s t i t u t i n g of a p o r t i o n of retirement benefits f o r n a i n t e n a n c e c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . The merit no husband's i t was n o t since "plain equal error" benefits. See, P.2d 989, and 170, 573 P.2d in protection raised the Easton v. at trial lacks of the Halldorson husband's is retirement E a s t o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. The any and s i n c e t h e r e distribution Halldorson v. 169. argument 416, (1977), 574 1 7 5 IJIont. argument also fails b e c a u s e no c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was c r e a t e d a s h e c o n t e n d s . The husband cases s e t claims up a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n application to divorce retirements are not Act or from of Mont . see, , to In re such See, 4850; classification. statutes Hisquierdo v, Hisquierdo 1; McCarty v . f o r Montana's of recognition (1981), - McGill 2105. These and whose Retirement Hisquierdo a its in Railroad t h e Marriage neither Court persons 8 0 2 , 59 L.Ed.2d federal construing Supreme against Federal 1 1 8 2 , 38 St.Rep. simply, recent "which d i s c r i m i n a t e s the 5 7 2 , 99 S . C t . 637 P.2d Quite rise under ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 49 U.S.L.W. McCarty two settlements the Military." ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 439 U,S. McCarty that nor McCarty cases were discerning the gave merely intent Congress i n enacting those s p e c i f i c r e t i r e m e n t plans. of These c a s e s had no e f f e c t on a n y p r i v a t e o r o t h e r f e d e r a l r e t i r e The h u s b a n d is a r g u i n g a p p l e s and o r a n g e s . ment p l a n s . i s we11 It other states a r e p a r t of ivlont . therein. , that, in a s a general the marital estate. /.) k A.L.R.3d4A3 established this rule, state and retirement For l i s t o f in most benefits cases, s e e 94 e t seq.; I n r e t h e M a r r i a g e of Karr ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - 628 P.2d 267, The reasoning 38 S t . R e p . behind 506, this and c a s e s c i t e d rule is that the ~ i s t r i c tC o u r t , consider "the in clpportioning opportunity of the each marital for the assets, inust acquisition of S e c t i o n 4Q-4-202 (1), MCA. c d p i t a l a s s e t s and income." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l i c i t l y f o u n d t h a t m a i n t e n a n c e end when would property Court and a s a granted retirement by the of ability dpportionment retired. substitute wife plans. evidence future t h e husband a wife's t o meet of form o f one-third share marital the District f o r maintenance, in each of the s o l u t i o n is s u p p o r t e d This well-reasoned the a As f u t u r e needs and the husband's The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s those needs. r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s must therefore be upheld. is whether The l a s t c o n t e n t i o n r a i s e d b y t h e h u s b a n d the District Court's failure to find t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e was i r r e t r i e v a b l y broken and t o f i n d t h a t one o f t h e p a r t i e s h a s b e e n d o m i c i l e d i n Montana f o r n i n e t y d a y s m a k e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment v o i d f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . The husband failed to District Court's findings of Failure such to involved parties. Mont. 262, make does not See, Here, jurisdiction exceptions technical is the re In Marriage the fatal of to to Turner 1303; and H a l l d o r s o n , the rights the law. issue of the (1978), Barron 177 supra. record both over supports oversight the ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 5 7 Mont. District t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r and by the except to the Court's the parties. in t h i s case, is merely Court does not District a f f e c t the substantial r i g h t s of the parties. failure when substantial Turner v. the 936; exceptions f a c t s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f T h e f a i l u r e t o make t h e s e f i n d i n g s , a any affect 1 6 1 , 580 P.2d 484 P.2d make District and The h u s b a n d ' s Court's findings, t h e r e f o r e , p r e c l u d e s t h i s C o u r t from r e v i e w o f t h e m a t t e r . F i n d i n g no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i t s judyrnent is a f f i r m e d . Respondent's motion for reason- a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d c o s t s i s g r a n t e d a n d remanded t o t h e District Court f o r proper determination. W e concur :

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.