MARRIAGE OF CHEREWICK

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-515 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F MONTANA F 1983 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F PATRICIA McCONNELL-CHEREWICK, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vsT O A ANDREW CHEREWICK, H M S 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 T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , The Honorable R o b e r t H . Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : W. C o r b i n Howard, B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent: Davidson, Veeder, Baugh, B r o e d e r , P o p p l e r & M i c h e l o t t i ; D o r i s M. P o p p l e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Clerk A p r i l 1 5 , 1983 J u l y 1 3 , 1983 Mr. J u s t i c e Court. John Sheehy C. delivered Thomas Andrew C h e r e w i c k , proceeding, appeals g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y of wife, Patricia from a the the t h e husband i n a d i s s o l u t i o n final t h e minor decree c h i l d of McConnell-Cherewick, of dissolution the parties and an order T h o m a s ' s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l and amendment o f i n g s of of Opinion t o the denying the find- f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on J u n e 1 5 , 1974. was 22 y e a r s of a g e , Thomas was 27. well One c h i l d , T i f f a n y , was t h e m a r r i a g e on A u g u s t 6, 1980. born of educated and pursuing Patricia careers. Both p a r t i e s a r e After t h e c h i l d was b o r n , P a t r i c i a r e m a i n e d a t home f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e . T h e r e a f t e r , P a t r i c i a t o o k T i f f a n y t o work w i t h h e r f o r a b o u t six months before the parties placed her in a day care c e n t e r . The p r i m a r y c a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e m a i n e d w i t h P a t r i c i a until s h e moved from the f a m i l y home. The p a r t i e s then s h a r e d c a r e of T i f f a n y u n t i l a p s y c h i a t r i s t , M a r i a n M a r t i n , recommended that Thomas Patricia visitation proceeding until retain primary completion of care the and allow dissolution . A f t e r a h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d custody of Tiffany t o P a t r i c i a and allowed visitation. The c u s t o d y b e c a u s e of the parties. August 12, District Thomas Court reasonable refused to liberal allow joint t h e h o s t i l i t y t h a t had d e v e l o p e d b e t w e e n The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d t h e f i n a l d e c r e e o n 1982. Thomas filed a combined m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l and f o r amendment o f 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. Thomas's m o t i o n was h e a r d and deemed d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o a c t . of a p p e a l . Thomas f i l e d n o t i c e W a f f i r m t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n a l l e respects. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e a r e : 1. Whether the District Court erred in refusing admit i n t o evidence Thomas's proposed e x h i b i t "N," to a letter from P a t r i c i a t o h e r f a t h e r . 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n refusing to g r a n t a new t r i a l o r amend i t s 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 o f l a w upon t h e g r o u n d o f newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s t o P a t r i c i a . The f i r s t i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d Thomas's p r o p o s e d e x h i b i t "N," P a t r i c i a t o her father. tion. a l e t t e r w r i t t e n by The l e t t e r was a p r i v a t e communica- T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e l e t t e r was c o m p l e t e d o r s e n t . Thomas f o u n d t h e l e t t e r and photocopied it f o r use a t a l a t e r date. the statement i n the l e t t e r that, Thomas o b j e c t s t o "My l a w y e r is i n c a h o o t s w i t h t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t - They a r e s e t t i n g Tom up v e r y s m a r t They w i l l make m e l o o k s u p e r g o o d . " The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r i g i n a l l y e x c l u d e d t h e e x h i b i t a s i r r e l e v a n t and l a t e r e x c l u d e d i t when u s e d t o impeach t h e witness. Thomas c o n t e n d s t h e e x h i b i t c o n t r a d i c t s P a t r i c i a ' s t e s t i m o n y a t t h e h e a r i n g and had b e a r i n g on h e r c r e d i b i l i t y . R u l e 4 0 1 , Mont.R.Evid., provides: " R e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e means e v i d e n c e h a v i n g a n y t e n d e n c y t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n y f a c t t h a t is of consequence t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e t h a n i t would b e w i t h o u t t h e evidence. R e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e may i n c l u d e e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g upon t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of a witness or hearsay declarant." The t e s t of r e l e v a n c e is: ". . . w h e t h e r a n i t e m of e v i d e n c e w i l l h a v e a n y v a l u e , a s d e t e r m i n e d by l o g i c and e x p e r i e n c e , i n p r o v i n g t h e p r o p o s i t i o n f o r which i t is o f f e r e d . The s t a n d a r d used t o measure t h i s a c c e p t a b l e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s ' a n y t e n d e n c y t o make more t h e e x i s t e n c e of any f a c t p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e t h a n i t would S t a t e v. be w i t h o u t t h e evidence. ' I 1 Fitzpatrick (1980), Nont , 606 P.2d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 5 4 , 37 S t . R e p . 1 9 4 , 207. . . . . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t t h e evidence is r e l e v a n t . that the District Court has abused Without a showing its discretion, this Court w i l l not overturn t h e District Court's determination of relevancy. S t a t e v. P.2d 9 4 0 , 38 S t . R e p . Close (1981), , Mont. 623 177. The l e t t e r was a p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t was n o t completed or d e l i v e r e d t o t h e intended r e c e i v e r . The D i s - t r i c t Court allowed P a t r i c i a t o t e s t i f y a s t o t h e c o n t e n t s of the The C o u r t had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o see t h e letter. w i t n e s s and d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e was r e l e v a n t a s t o t h e t r u t h of t h e s t a t e m e n t s made and h e r c r e d i b i l i t y . We f i n d no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n excluding t h e evidence. The s e c o n d i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t a new t r i a l o r amend i t s f i n d i n g s o f fact and conclusions of law upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. Thomas a s s e r t s t h e newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e evidence that Patricia's back yard is presented at not the is f e n c e d and is bounded by a d i t c h . There was evidence the hearing that P a t r i c i a l i v e d w i t h a n o t h e r woman who had two c h i l d r e n . The c h i l d r e n g o t a l o n g w e l l and They were hearing. living in a enjoyed large each o t h e r ' s house at the company. time of the Thomas p r e s e n t s no e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t T i f f a n y froin t h i s and P a t r i c i a h a v e moved home. The e v i d e n c e o f w h e t h e r t h e y a r d was f e n c e d was a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e hearing : "Q. What t y p e of y a r d d o e s y o u r p r e s e n t A. [Patricia] W e have home h a v e ? approximately a half acre. It's enclosed w i t h a f e n c e on one s i d e , a h e d g e is o n the other side. And I t a k e v e r y good t o There is watch h e r when w e a r e o u t s i d e . a s w i n g , a l s o , i n t h e back f o r h e r . " W e h a v e s t a t e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a new t r i a l is j u s t i f i e d : "1. The a l l e g e d ' n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d ' e v i d e n c e came t o h i s knowledge a f t e r t h e trial; I t was n o t a want o f d i l i g e n c e which "2. precluded its e a r l i e r discovery; "3. The m a t e r i a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s s o g r e a t i t would p r o b a b l y p r o d u c e a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t on r e t r i a l ; a n d , "4. The a l l e g e d 'new e v i d e n c e ' i s n o t merely cumulative, n o t tending only t o impeach o r d i s c r e d i t w i t n e s s e s i n t h e case. " K a r t e s v. K a r t e s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. 210, 214-215, 573 P.2d 1 9 1 , 1 9 4 . With r e g a r d t o P a t r i c i a ' s y a r d , it is c l e a r that the e v i d e n c e was a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e h e a r i n g and c o u l d have been a s c e r t a i n e d Patricia testified through simple discovery. to the fact that the In yard fact, was not completely fenced. No o t h e r e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d s h o w i n g that fenced. state the yard that the was yard was While fenced, s i g n i f i c a n t t o warrant reversal. the this District Court d i d oversight Therefore, was not the assertion t h a t t h i s " d i s c o v e r y " w a r r a n t s a new t r i a l i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . Thomas a d d i t i o n a l l y a s s e r t s t h a t a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g o n August 2, 1982, Patricia took Tiffany from tne day care B e c a u s e of t h i s e ' v i d e n c e , Thomas a s s e r t s c e n t e r f o r a day. h e i s e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l b e c a u s e P a t r i c i a was n o t coo p e r a t i n g with t h e planned schedule. A g a i n , we d o n o t f i n d t h i s e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a new t r i a l . more, the District Court did not s c h e d u l e u n t i l August 1 0 , 1982. establish Further- a visitation Thomas a d m i t s t h a t h e was i n f o r m e d by t h e c o u p l e who manage t h e d a y c a r e c e n t e r t h a t T i f f a n y was w i t h h e r m o t h e r . her s a f e t y . H e therefore did not fear for T h e r e is no m e r i t t o t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h i s " n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d " e v i d e n c e j u s t i f i e s a new t r i a l . Thomas f i n a l l y a r g u e s t h a t a new t r i a l was j u s t i f i e d by t h e f a c t t h a t D r . counselled Joseph Rich, both p a r t i e s p r i o r a p s y c h i a t r i s t who had t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage, decided t o t e s t i f y . their Rich r e f u s e d t o t e s t i f y Dr. a t t h e o r i g i n a l hearing because t h e p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d by R i c h i n c o u n s e l i n g would n o t b e u s e d in court. However, counseling s e s s i o n s he had state objections about his h e was l a t e r w i l l i n g t o t e s t i f y a b o u t had alone with Marian Thomas Martin's and to statements r e g a r d i n g Thomas's a n g e r . Dr. R i c h was a v a i l a b l e a t t h e time o f t r i a l a n d c o u l d h a v e been s u b p o e n a e d by Thomas. t o t h e knowledge o f want of Thomas a f t e r The e v i d e n c e d i d n o t come the trial d i l i g e n c e by Thomas a s t o t h e The m a t e r i a l i t y of the evidence was and t h e r e was t e s t i m o n y of not so great Rich. as to p r o d u c e a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . T h e r e f o r e , w e a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d by t h i s a r g u m e n t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n by d e n y i n g Thomas a new t r i a l . Furthermore, with regard to t h e newly discovered e v i d e n c e , we do n o t f i n d t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h i s " n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d " e v i d e n c e t o be c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . R u l e 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. The District third Court issue raised erred in on is appeal ordering custody whether of Tiffany the to Patricia. Thomas c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o s e t forth the all reasons for the r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 1 2 ( 3 ) , S e c t i o n 40-4-212, determination as ( 4 ) , MCA. provides: MCA, " B e s t i n t e r e s t of determine custody b e s t i n t e r e s t of shall consider including: custody child. The c o u r t s h a l l i n accordance with t h e the child. The c o u r t a l l relevant factors " ( 1 )t h e w i s h e s o f t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t o r parents a s t o h i s custody; " ( 2 ) t h e wishes of custodian; the child as to his " ( 3 ) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e c h i l d w i t h h i s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s , h i s s i b l i n g s , and any o t h e r p e r s o n who may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e child's best interest; " ( 4 ) t h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t t o h i s home, s c h o o l , and community; and " ( 5 ) t h e m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l a l l individuals involved." health of Thomas a s s e r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o make t h e n e c e s s a r y f i n d i n g s by " i g n o r i n g " e v i d e n c e h e h a d s u b m i t t e d . H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made n o f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p a r t i e s . asserts the findings community. District regarding Court Tiffany's failed to make adjustment to He f u r t h e r the necessary her home The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d : "The C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d a l l a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t o r s on c u s t o d y a s f o l l o w s : "1. Both p a r t i e s s e e k s o l e c u s t o d y . and "2. From the evidence, it is apparent that the child is well-adjusted and although experiencing the stress of her parents' separation and divorce, is developing normally. "3. All parties enjoy excellent mental and physical health. However, Dr. Marian Martin recommends that both parties seek counseling and take a 'parenting course'. "That it would be in the best interests of the minor child of the parties to be placed in the care, custody and control of the petitioner and that respondent have reasonable liberal rights of visitation. The Court bases this finding upon the fact that joint custody works only if the parties are able to communicate freely and work well together, and share the responsibilities without rancor. Testimony of the parties and observed open hostility of the parties in the courtroom raises doubt that the parties can agree on substantial matters well enough for joint custody to work well, and the age of the child is such that one domicile would give her more security emotionally. The testimony of the parties does not indicate that respondent shared child-rearing responsibilities and homemaker duties equally with petitioner. It is clear that petitioner bore those responsibilities prior to the separation. The testimony further showed that the present living arrangements of the petitioner are more desirable for a young female child as testimony showed the family home is located in a remote section of the city, with no near neighbors or children to play with, that the home does not have a yard or fenced enclosure for her to play in and that petitioner's home is well suited for the needs of the child, with a large fenced yard, and other children nearby. "Although Dr. Martin's recommendation was to place primary custody with the father, testimony was clear that the father was rather inflexible in allowing the mother frequent visitation and that the father sometimes has used the child's visitation as an outlet for his bitterness and hostility toward the mother for divorcing him. Dr. Taylor testified that most of the five counseling sessions had dealt with respondent's bitterness toward petitioner and had to be directed toward his relationship with the child. Petitioner t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e would c o o p e r a t e f u l l y with the c o u r t ' s c u s t o d i a l arrangements i f s h e were g i v e n custody. Witness Diane G i r a r d o t t e s t i f i e d of h e r p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n of p e t i t i o n e r ' s child-rearing a b i l i t i e s and t h e home e n v i r o n m e n t a n d t h a t same was e x c e l l e n t . " The f u n c t i o n of t h i s Court i n reviewing f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n a c i v i l a c t i o n t r i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y is n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t i n p l a c e o f t h e t r i e r of f a c t s b u t r a t h e r is c o n f i n e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f fact and conclusions of the District Court. Cameron & J e n k i n s v . Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 2 1 9 , 587 P.2d 939. Each p a r t y h a d S e v e r a l e x p e r t s and the opportunity t o present f r i e n d s were called and evidence. the District Court h e a r d e x t e n s i v e testimony on both s i d e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t had the opportunity w i t n e s s e s and e v a l u a t e t h e i r t e s t i m o n y . t o view the The D i s t r i c t C o u r t is n o t o b l i g a t e d t o o u t l i n e a l l o f t h e t e s t m o n y p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l i n its f i n d i n g s of f a c t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y supported its custody determination. T h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence presented a t t h e hearing f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t o support t h e the D i s t r i c t Court with regard t o t h e custody determination. The j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . 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.