MARRIAGE OF PFENNIGS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

APPEAL FROM: District Court ofthe Eighth Judicial District. In and for the Count) of Cascade, The Honorable Kenneth R. Nei:!, Judge presiding, COCXSEL OF PdCORD For Appelianr and Cross-Respondent: Richard L. Parish: Harien. Thon~pson Parish. Weiena. Montana t% For Respondent and Cross-Appellant: I Dale Schwarike; .!arcline: Stepiienson, B1ewe:t & Llieaver, Great Falls, ( hlontma c': J:IIXC,S f r o, ,i " ' \I, P f i t n i ~ ~ g > {JXCCS'; -. L : ~ p e d 21:d Ja11et kern Ijk13~11ig~ ; j , ~ : :~ t ~ s s - : i ~ p c ~ ! ~ s c , l ~ r! . . . mdingi or past. <,imcl~.;.;ii~r .,i' ,.. . . I>ist;.;ct :'mi;!. Casiacic ifcilni!;. i..:~y.v arid Order enitred 5s. the Eighrh .J;iiic(;i! modieing James child support and interpreting tile partics' property settlement agreement (.-I~recrnent). L1,-e a f X m . K e restate the issues on appeal and cross-appeal as foliows: "3 1. Did the District Court em in concluding that the Agreement's retiremen1 benefits provision clearly enritled .i:met to 50% of James' rerirement benetits at the time he retires? "4 2 . Did the District Coun abuse its discretior1 by amarding increased child suppon I-etroaccive to January of 1'297 ratllcr tilan to November of 1 W 5 ' ? *;7 ) 3. Did the District Court crr in conciuding that thei'e was no sufficient basis to ref(3rm the A p e m e n t to reqiiire James to provide life insurance'.' 1 '6 4. Did the District Court wi in concluding that neither party ?re\-ailed and in denying Janet attorney fees and costs'? I: - I 5. is Janet entitled to attorney k e s and costs on appeal'.' II:!L'KC;RO C,3'E ' 8 On January 3. 1W2. tile D i m k t C o u entered a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage ~ (Decree) dissolviilg James mil Janet'; ~narriage. The Decree incorpcxaizd the pi--ies' . - \ p x m e n i ,,vAiih--:m:i;i. .- ,)fiier rkings--divi&d their ~sseis. n c ! u d i ~ ~ i James' rztirement Senefirs. 1 : C" >,I ;) \ , <?t 1.1:,. * - 10 .3-l?:>:. . L , , l L,... J L , *. Kox"cs & ; L i . j ~J fiar171(, 1 . . ii:ppcrt. con:e;:d;z~ rhx scbsra-ti:~l a l ~ d:;:nrin;llnz . f - I ei... 1 ~l ' ,::?ilc' support arcc?nxion;i5ie. Jmc: , . i . ' ' L 1 0 a c h a n ~ c s :irzan:,s;arccs .in " a i ~ noi l . 2ilj.ii lii r?a& the actii-ly ? u r i w that motion. im\vevcr. until she requested a schcchling confer-rce ix December of 1996. In ..i;?ril of i 9 E . Janet filed an adiliiionai petition reqnesting refomarioi; of the Agreement to include an alleged oral agreement that James cvciii!ii continue lift; insurance on himself ~vith her as tile designated bexficiriry. s h e conceded h t Ii% insurance was not pan of the .tgreemenr, but argued it was a collateral arrangemen: which was part of the ovevsil '%ansaction" of the inariral dissoiiition. Janet also requested the District Court to interpret the retirement benefits provisions in tb.e Agreement, contending she S ~ O L L receive ! ~ 5ilo,i1 of James' retirement benefiis calc~ilateilfrom his actua! retirement date rather than from the time of the dissolution. Finalb. she raised the issue of attorney f;-es i n the proposed findings of h c t she submitted to the coilfl. 1 After a bench trial in May of 199:. the District Coun entzred irs tindings of fact: conclusions of law and order. It detemined that: changed circumstai~ceswarrantzci an I increase i n child support. ~ L I made the increase retrocleriw to .Jar,uary of !99, rather char to h e time ot.ianet's motii)n to mi)&* in November of 1995; no sufficient basis c x i s t d to r;.fixm t!~c-4green;cnt to require James to muinrain a lifc insurance policy n:irniny Janet as rho beneficiarj-: rhe .\sri.ement\ retiremenr benefiz provision clearly entitled Janet to 5(~(;,~, .?f Jumes' r e t i r m w ~benetits ialculatcd at the t i n e of his retirement: and ncther party :oi!id t C" I I 1. Did the District Court err in concluding that the kgr-ee ent's retirement benefits pro%isioncieari? entitled Janet to 50'?0 of .lames' retirement benefits at the time he retires? 13 in 'I-he rctirl.ment benefits pro~vision the parties' .\preement pro7;ides: Retirement Benefits. li'c a s c e we each should bc awarded 50% of [James1/ retirement benefits. C'pon retirement, [James! agrzes to effectuate a second warrant to be [sic] sent to !Jane:]. I n this regard. the Drstrict Court concltlded that [tjhe pro\.ision ofthe -tgreement re!ating to rerirement benefits is clear. It s a y [Janet] is entitled to one-half of the benefits. It clearly conternplates separate at retirement. it does not i ~ d i c a t e is based on the account haiance it at the time of the Agreement. T h r e .was no calculation of such balance. Aicordin~!\..this division is b x e d on all bcncfits accrued or to accrue, - - , Accordingly, the couri ordered that '-[James'] retirement benefits pursuant to the [retirement] plan in effect when the Marital S d e m e n t Agreement was signed, or any successor plan, shall bc di;icied such that ;Janet/ ti7 L . , ," .,rirement benefits p r ~ n . ision 0, her lieirs shall be paid one-iia!foithe benefits [Jai-iies] WLIS un;irnbigui)~~s entitling Janet in :o 50% ofhis retirement reform the agreement to require J r m a to proiide litk insurance? *LC) ~~~i~~ l!le . . . p.Q-,. . ~ marriage. Jaines o w n d a !if< insurance piic\; on himself u-iti: ell L , Janet as the designated befieiiiiarq.. Janet testified that. while discussing the terms to be inc!uded in the Agreement. james agreed ro continue to maintain this insurance policy and name her as thc irrcvocablc beneficiary and that. because James did not want to make Janet the owner ofthe poiicq., her attome!; decided not to inciude ii in rlie .'rgreenent. Zhortl> 11l'ier the parties' .Agreement iiird been incorporated into the Decree. James executeci an .ilisiate t.iie insurance Company Request ibr Change of Beneficiarq f o m . This f;?m contnincti a "Remarks'. section which stxed: Designate Janc: Pfcnnigs as the inevocable heileficiar!; on this policy. This change is made as part of the dimrce agreement betiicen James and Janct Pfennigs. James suhsequentiy borrowed against the policy :md the po!icy lapsed when James failed to require James ti: puichise a life iiisur-ance poiicy nami;q her as the benef?eiary. 'The 1.Iisrrict .. Cotirt denied Janet., requcs;, conciuiling "[nje sufiicieni basis exists to require refamation establish en-or by the District Court in deng-ing her request to r e f o m the A,ureemem Rule 231~a)(4), M.R.App.P,, requires an appellant to cite to authorities supporring the contentions raised on appeal arid we regu!arly decline to address unsupported issries or arzilments. See, . I re r i .Ilirriage c$Lee g' i iI 2 o n 5 2 9 32 1 2 1298: i n re 1997). 282 Ilont, 410. 121. 038 P.2d 650, 657: .Johnn:ieiz L . .Sa;re, Dept. qf.\.iltiunl Re.so~/rce.s,1993 I1T 51. " , 258 Ilont. 39. 1 24. 955 P.23 653. 7 71. Janex l~nvingfailed to con~ply ~vitli Rule 23(a)!,ii. \/I.R.App.P.. with regard to her a r p m e n t that kmixs. :he court erred in refuzinq to rel'orrn tile contract. we deciine to address that argi~ment a:' 1 ,->i Janet advances other theories, however. aitd wc address them briefly. kecping in mind tlint 'he appellant has the to establish error by the disrnct coun. .Tee In re J I m r i ~ z ~ c (j!' ilc?oiiide (~1 9 9 4 . 265 hlont. 168.1-6-1.S"5 P 2 d 33 1. 337. First. Janet contends i k i :he , had parties ~bl,'i,~i;~,:,, an agi.ee~le3t i h ~ i r1:aint;tini:1g i i k insurance vr James *;vculc! rioi i t Thus, the .4greernenr negates the existcncc of a preexisting oral agreement about life ii:surance as a matter of law. 3 4 Janet also urges thar James is esropped from asserting there was no agrecmenr regarding life insurance because he signed the beneficiary designation form. 'h-hile b~er oneparagraph estoppel argument is not well-developed, she essentially contends that by signing the insurance thnn James promised to designate her the irrevocable beneficiary L& to keep the policy in place. The form does retlect the inevocable beneficiarq. designation: the record does nor reflect. however; th:ii James n:oditied rhe beneficiary designation at any time prior to the lapse of the insurance policy. Cforeover. the form does not reflect an>-promise to keep tile policy in effecr for any period of time. Thus. on this record: James kept the soie promise reflected by the ins~iranee benefjciary fixm 2nd this coiitenrion need not bc adcircssed hither. '.,> - ,-7 W'e hold that the Disrict Coun did not err in concludins that tlxrc was no sufficient to h s ; s to reform t!~el p x r n c n t :o require J ~ m e b proxide '1 3. Ilk insurance 4. Did the District t ourt e r r irr concluding that neither p a r e pretailed and in densing Janet attorney fees and costs? 1-iowever. when the language of a11agreement is clear with r e p d to fccs and costs. a disaict court is bound by its t e m x ii? re .lJurriclge cifChrcs i 1994j, 263 Mont. 377. 385, 868 P 2 d 6 15, 620. K ~ review a district courts conclusion to detemirx whether its interpretation of e lm is correct. Br~:J.slzim,2-0 llont. at 229. 391 P.Zd at 510. 9 !- Part X\.-I1 of the . + x m e n t . entitled ".-\'ITORXEY FEES A \ D COSTS." provides 111the event any action or proceeding must be commenced in order to enforce. modit; or interpret any provision of this .AGREEClEN'T. we agree that the Court shoii!d award reusonable attorney fees and costs to the prevsiling party. . Given this clear attorney fees provision, it is necessaq- to determine whether the present action is encompassed tvithin f i e provision and. it'so. wllet!?er Janet was the prevai!ing party. 1 The issues b e h r e rhe District ('our: nerc .Panet's petition for reformation ct' the

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.