ELLIS v ELLIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 96-097 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 DANIEL J. ELLIS, Respondent and Appellant, v. MILDRED A. ii\& ELLIS, Petitioner APPEAL FROM: 2 2 .pj$$ and Respondent. District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial In and for the County of Yellowstone! The Honorable Diane Bars, Judge presiding. District, COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Gerald For me 3 g *,.$ L$ ? h-.- Neely, Billings, Montana Respondent: Joanne Filed: J. k f%d b,G$ 2 2 1996 ,-, I) M. Briese, i Billings, Submitted ,.. c. Montana on Briefs: Decided: 1 8-l Cl&k May 3, 1996 August 22, 1996 Justice William E. Hunt, Appellant, of Fact the Daniel Sr. J. Ellis and Conclusions Thirteenth awarding of Judicial his former delivered the (Daniel), appeals Law entered of the from Court Mildred of A. Ellis, Court. the Findings 21, on September District wife, Opinion 1995, Yellowstone permanent by County, maintenance. We affirm. The sole Court's issue decision substantial raised to by award Daniel is permanent whether the maintenance District was based on evidence. FACTS Daniel children and Mildred of the years old which marriage. precludes 8 years, 1994 and in inspector for Agriculture. He earned traditionally receives long periods. also receives overtime For testified Department has been problem the past Store. In a federal United States 1994. In the first 47 meat Department $1,463.50. 1995 This totalliny monthly testified supplement that amount her exceed that she her current monthly includes her net would be income to because her 2 year and total on debts incurred as of that income unable the expenses testified monthly of Daniel living payment Mildred $7,846.06. expenses after addition, of pay.. Mildred was back in a pay raise no minor Mildred the $39,194.21 are a chronic Daniel 23 years trial, Herberger's $13,761.98. the past of There for for for 1977. time except standing has worked in the health from earned for married At good her Mildred Mildred were find her estimated by $581.90. Mildred additional employer does work not to allow its employees position, the In for hours of an affidavit Daniel paycheck. its testified competitors. that several stated a retail be difficult to trial, for Daniel In addition his of her to job. other that Outside would prior per month. listed Daniel it an additional supplied pay as $2,697.60 taxes, per work Mildred coordinate gross to to itemized personal listed state and federal deductions expenses his were to his $2,111.42 month. Although Daniel offered testimony during the dissolved court her through $500.00 or Daniel month the June 1995 hearing, the hearing, the distributed and Mildred per at and was represented After marriage determined present deposition proceedings. the she dies was not the marital was eligible from the for date of by counsel District of Court assets. maintenance entry he The and awarded the decree until remarries. appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court will maintenance unless re Marriage of 1376; In 522, not the Davies re Marriage reverse court's district findings (1994), are 266 Mont. clearly Marriage erroneous, this of Eschenbacher (1995), whether determining Smith a court's clearly 466, 478, Court 270 Mont. district has adopted (1992), 253 Mont. 1355. 3 263, award erroneous. 880 P.Zd court's a three-part 139, 142, 269, of In 1368, 526. When of the 891 P.2d findings are test. In re 831 P.2d 1353, First, the Court will review the record to see if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Second, if the findings are supported by substantial evidence, we will determine if the trial court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence. Third, if substantial evidence exists and the effect of the evidence has not been misapprehended the Court may still find that a finding is clearly erroneous when, although the evidence is there to support it, a review of the record leaves the court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (citations omitted). Eschenbacher, Ass'n v. 831 DeSaye P.2d at (1991), 1355 (citing 250 Mont. Interstate 320, 323, Prod. 820 P.2d Credit 1285, 1287). DISCUSSION Daniel On appeal, District argues support the First, he contends that Second, he contends that ordered by the Court's whether if eligible. In this part statutory substantial evidence to to award Mildred not is maintenance. maintenance. entitled financially to unable to pay the amount Court. determine the decision he is initially making was not Mildred District When determining consider there the to award maintenance, spouse of the court must maintenance requesting determination, provisions the is court must district ยง 40-4-203, MCA, which read in as follows: 40-4-203. Maintenance. (1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage . . the court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse only if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance: (a) lacks sufficient property to provide for his [or her] reasonable needs; and (b) is unable to support himself [or herself1 through appropriate employment . . . . In Daniel's be short first on monthly argument, funds he contends until such 4 a time that as Mildred she pays will off only her existing will debts. After be reduced court to improperly separation $1,x76.50. the debt Mildred's to Daniel leaves only $3,476.65 In from her other schedule, maintenance sufficient property Daniel is or not property to support Mildred would not be satisfy position that Mildred's per Wife able to herself lacks that if of Mildred's amount deficient [sic] a reference to considering Mildred's was per month. tax findings deficit. obligations, The court 5 the Contrary $153.17 Mildred's by or then debts, is situation Daniel's per month added to to her Respondent this assertion, conclusions is the court, Mildred's net found would is Court, to Here, found court It statute. court's unable Here, her when that the spouse existing "which in the sufficient the Thus, of the herself." for employment. add $159.00 for the and is loans provide to eligible personal no where $881.60 or Mildred found from has no specific the herself. prong son asserts disputed month however, support second him argues duration her of interest. find that Daniel to loan appropriate fact the attributable expenses, living $153.17 is the the this the support herself. able the must through considered would court for be considered or applicable to herself not the $4,399.41 Daniel because the contesting have properly son should maintenance repayment him addition, that following that a wedding of determining support asserts expenses argues by Mildred for To award lacks incurred This living due date, Daniel was payment marriage. purpose debts monthly expenses. a previous loan Mildred's Furthermore, parties. current $3,000.00 her debts, considered of Mildred's paying Mildred's there after income monthly living expenses every month. Mildred is $159.00 in to be $1,463.50. falls Even currently of Upon review and both employment. in after maintenance, the would be the 4-203(2). On appeal, erred amount in maintenance. court Daniel's to Daniel month, and therefore by the consider short amounts including Mildred's to income the still through was for that a spouse then engage is in of maintenance argument his that for herself eligible must clearly maintenance. eligible for an analysis to to that District is to already the pay the $18.12 S 40- ordered short several the relevant an award of statute, factors maintenance. Daniel's that to pay maintenance per court. Under be unable not her pursuant ability he is a finding provide Court is consider he would to Mildred second asserts supports support District and duration failing $581.90 her debts, evidence unable the that trial to property determining determine Court the sufficient determining not Daniel, record, lacks she Next, by Mildred expenses. Therefore, erroneous to discharge monthly the leaves had chosen disputed of that court spending her Mildred needs the payments short that if This ability a court The applicable to will pay is consider statute awarded only one of in determining reads in part follows: The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and (2) for such periods of time as the court deems just, without regard to marital misconduct, and after considering all relevant facts including: the financial resources of the party seeking (a) including marital property apportioned to maintenance, and his ability to meet his needs independently, him, including the extent to which a provision for support of 6 the as a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian; (b) the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment; (c) the standard of living established during the marriage; (d) the duration of the marriage; (e) the age and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; and (f) the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance. Section 40-4-203(2), the Here, its MCA. court findings. addressed The court resources, finding court considered also But, the court education, loan old. living court expenses a car were an excess that net closer employment. or of additional taking after on a large she Mildred's Daniel's court $948.00 income that The was 50 separation. the expenses, of found with to court ability that to Daniel's court able From to pay afford monthly $286.41 determined that this, of the for Daniel court $500 per month He argues that Mildred. the standard an additional $1,133.02. was financially that financial future market job noted The maintenance pay is the considered Daniel asserts prospect in property. retraining the since monthly with criteria limited for court approximately as permanent his the After Daniel the Mildred. payment. determined face enter listed producing prospects even to also for above Mildred's that only had diminished maintenance had Mildred's would debt the she had no income In addition, The considered determined Mildred student years that many of to $2,093 per 7 was incorrect. month. He further asserts that his monthly averaging expenses $2,111.42 per The disparity is explained part of payments he District is his is and that his the This and subsequently scope District pay is in to a deciding pay award, stated "[wlhile determining factor." In 505, 510, findings factors 833 P.2d must and 1095, demonstrate that the it re his one in of Instead, the maintenance court award payments, in in then are to him as assertion record. to be taken of the it its to meet ability Tahija this implicitly by the determining Marriage Daniel ability factor the and incurred which supported before, cards income Daniel's an element, that credit Debts that is 1098. is be attributed not 8 - cannot only is factor maintenance his point. some way ignored is credit employment we conclude maintenance As we have not the employer ability consideration. to by his all non-existent Daniel's Court and pay Daniel's of the he charges court exceed misses as On appeal, the him Daniel's But, dispute, employer. to Therefore, expenses. that imputing substantial on his that numbers In cards. does not asserts assertion assumed monthly own needs credit his court's includes he reimbursements is estimate, findings. inspector by and travel court course the various as a.meat determination. the on and as Daniel argument court's and the court expenses, reimbursed that numbers other expenses this finding Daniel's monthly making subsequently the month. found travel extends mc~re than by way of his Court of far between in estimation are is not spouse a the 253 Mont. the on of always has held considered was based into propriety (1992), Court the his that proper substantial credible 309, evidence. 880 P.2d 824, We conclude factors and its evidence; the Therefore, In re Marriage Corey (1994), 266 Mont. Court considered that the District affirm District award was based Court's the findings court's the on substantial were not calculations clearly and maintenance. Affirmed. Justlce We Copcur: 304, 827. maintenance we of / 9 proper credible erroneous. award of
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.
