Preview:

No. 14419
I N THE SUPF!ENJ3 C W O THE STATE O M3WANA O F F

1979

IN RE THE MARRIAGE O F
JANET M. McENlLD,

Petitioner and Respondent,
-VS-

CHRISrOPHER J. m O A D DNL,

Respondent and Appellant.

Appeal frcnn:

D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Ftemrd:
For A p ~ l l a n t :

Dave B. Kinnard, Billings, Mxkana
For Respondent:

Gary Beiswanger, Billings, mntana

S u h i t t e d on b r i e f s : Decided:
.+

M y 9, 1979 a

SEF - 5 1979

Filed:

Stf

1q9

Mr.

J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s an a p p e a l by t h e f a t h e r from two o r d e r s o f t h e

Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , one which r e f u s e d t o modify a d i v o r c e s e t t l e m e n t and d e c r e e p l a c i n g c u s t o d y i n t h e mother, and t h e second from an o r d e r awarding t h e mother a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s g e n e r a t e d from h e r d e f e n s e of t h e f a t h e r ' s modification p e t i t i o n . The a p p e a l from t h e December 22, 1977 o r d e r i s d i s m i s s e d a s it came a f t e r t h e f i l i n g d e a d l i n e ; however, t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e mother i s r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e t h e t i m e had e x p i r e d w i t h i n which t h e mother had a d u t y t o a c t . O J a n u a r y 5 , 1976, t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t n Court e n t e r e d a d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n which i n c o r p o r a t e d a s e p a r a t i o n agreement e x p r e s s i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' d e s i r e t o g i v e t h e mother c u s t o d y o f t h e i r two minor c h i l d r e n , s u b j e c t t o v i s i t a t i o n by t h e f a t h e r . However, on August 1 7 , 1977, t h e

f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r modification of t h e p r i o r d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e and a l l e g e d t h a t c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n s h o u l d b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o him. I n an o r d e r f i l e d December 2 2 , 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n , f i n d i n g t h a t he had n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 40-4-219, c o u l d n o t modify t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e .
MCA,

and t h e r e f o r e

The o r d e r a l s o p r o v i d e d

t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s s h o u l d b e a r t h e i r own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . N o t i c e of e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r was f i l e d on December 3 0 , 1977. I t was n o t u n t i l f i v e months l a t e r t h a t a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d .

Almost t h r e e months a f t e r t h e o r d e r d e n y i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n , t h e mother f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o pay a r e a s o n a b l e amount f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n c u r r e d by t h e mother i n d e f e n d i n g a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d May 1 7 , 1978. O May 26, 1978, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l , n a p p e a l i n g n o t o n l y from t h e o r d e r r e l a t i n g t o a t t o r n e y f e e s , b u t a l s o from t h e December 1977 o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s p e t i t i o n f o r modification of custody. Clearly, we cannot determine t h e appeal i n r e l a t i o n t o m o d i f i c a t i o n of c u s t o d y ; b u t j u s t a s c l e a r l y , w e must r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n i t s d e c i s i o n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , f o r t h e t i m e p e r i o d had l o n g e x p i r e d . Rule 5 , Mont.R.App.Civ.P., p r o v i d e s t h a t a p p e a l from an

o r d e r must be t a k e n w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s of i t s e n t r y e x c e p t t h a t i n c a s e s where s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e of e n t r y i s r e q u i r e d , t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l s h a l l be t h i r t y d a y s from t h e s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment.
Here, s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y o f

t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r was made on December 3 0 , 1977. The f a t h e r f i l e d h i s a p p e a l o f t h i s o r d e r on May 2 6 , 1978, and t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e t h i r t y day t i m e l i m i t d e p r i v e d t h i s Court of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s appeal. The m o t h e r ' s l a t e r

p e t i t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s , under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e , d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e t h i r t y day l i m i t a t i o n f o r f i l i n g an appeal. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s December 22, 1977 o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s modification p e t i t i o n provided i n p a r t t h a t both p a r t i e s w e r e t o b e a r t h e i r own a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . a l m o s t t h r e e months l a t e r , on March 1 7 , 1978, t h e mother p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o pay a r e a s o n a b l e amount f o r t h e c o s t s and a t t o r n e y But

f e e s i n c u r r e d by h e r i n d e f e n s e o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n f i l e d by t h e f a t h e r . On May 1 7 , 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
MCA, which r e q u i r e d

f i l e d an o r d e r based on s e c t i o n 40-4-110,

t h e f a t h e r t o pay t h e sums o f $1,491 t o t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y and $1,000 d i r e c t l y t o t h e mother. Court had no s u c h a u t h o r i t y . Rule 5 9 ( g ) , M0nt.R.Civ.P. provides:
"A motion t o a l t e r

Clearly, the District

o r amend t h e judgment s h a l l be s e r v e d n o t l a t e r t h a n 10 d a y s a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y of judgment. T h i s r u l e a p p l i e s t o p e t i t i o n s f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s f i l e d a f t e r e n t r y of judgment. 50 F.R.D. S t a c y v. W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 7 0 ) ,

. ."

52 ( c o n s t r u i n g Rule 59 ( e ) , F e d . R . ~ i v . P . , which i s Lichtenstein

i d e n t i c a l i n c o n t e n t t o Rule 5 9 ( g ) , M0nt.R.Civ.P.);

v. L i c h t e n s t e i n ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 55 F.R.D.
59 ( e ) , Fed. R.Civ.P. ) ; Shea (19791, 37 I Mont see also M

535 ( c o n s t r u i n g Rule
& R

C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. v.

.

,

589 P.2d 138, 36 St.Rep.

( t h i s Court a p p l i e d Rule 59 ( g ) t o a motion t o s t r i k e Proper a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e

judgment f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s ) .

r u l e s c l e a r l y p r o h i b i t e d g r a n t i n g of t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f t o t h e mother i n t h i s c a s e . Notice of e n t r y of t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r r e q u i r i n g b o t h p a r t i e s t o b e a r t h e i r own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s was s e r v e d on t h e f a t h e r on December 3 0 , 1977. Having f a i l e d t o

f i l e h e r p e t i t i o n f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s w i t h i n t e n d a y s of s e r v i c e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g i v e t h e mother t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f . Though t h e r e l i e f g r a n t e d i n t h e f a c e of t h e e x i s t i n g procedural r u l e s i s highly unusual, t h e t r i a l court d i d not b o t h e r t o e x p l a i n t h e b a s i s of i t s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f t o t h e mother.
I t i s highly unlikely t h a t

an a p p e a l would have r e s u l t e d had t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y

a p p l i e d t h e r u l e s of c i v i l procedure t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , f i l e d t h r e e months a f t e r e n t r y of t h e f i n a l o r d e r . By n o t a p p e a l i n g t h e December 2 2 , 1977 o r d e r denying t h e p e t i t i o n t o modify c u s t o d y , t h e f a t h e r had o b v i o u s l y d e c i d e d t o f o r e g o an a p p e a l . But t h r e e months l a t e r , h e

was f a c e d w i t h t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o award h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n c u r r e d a s a r e s u l t of d e f e n d i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o modify c u s t o d y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t had u n e q u i v o c a l l y

r u l e d t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s were t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r n e y f e e s and costs. The mother c o u l d have p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,

within t h e procedural time l i m i t s , t o reconsider t h a t r u l i n g , o r c o u l d have a p p e a l e d t h a t r u l i n g w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s , b u t did neither. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g g r a n t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s

p e t i t i o n compelled t h e f a t h e r t o a p p e a l u n l e s s he c o u l d p e r s u a d e t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o change i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s t o t h e mother.
W e r e c o g n i z e , of c o u r s e , t h e r i g h t of t h e f a t h e r under

t h e r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e t o a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r w i t h o u t f i r s t p e t i t i o n i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t the alleged error. such d i r e c t a p p e a l s . But t h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t w e encourage The f a t h e r c o u l d have f i l e d a motion I f it

r e q u e s t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t i t s o r d e r .

had been done, and i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d c o r r e c t i t s e r r o r ,

i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e mother would have a p p e a l e d .

Moreover,

i f s h e had a p p e a l e d , b e i n g t h a t h e r p o s i t i o n o b v i o u s l y had no f o u n d a t i o n i n t h e law, it c o u l d w e l l have been c l a s s i f i e d by t h i s C o u r t a s f r i v o l o u s under Rule 32, Mont.R.App.Civ.P., with a p p r o p r i a t e s a n c t i o n s being t h e r e s u l t . Furthermore,

i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s motion t o c o r r e c t such a p a t e n t e r r o r , n o t h i n g would have been l o s t . Conceivably,

the District Court would even have explained the basis for its ruling granting the mother's motion. But turning solely to the patently erroneous ruling of the District Court, an appeal was in order. This being

so, the father undoubtedly thought he had nothing to lose by also requesting this Court to review on the merits, the original decision of the District Court denying his petition to modify the custody decree. A more careful and conscientious application of the rules by the trial courts, and a more careful analysis by the lawyers of the procedural options available to correct errors of the trial courts, will undoubtedly benefit the court system, and save much time and money for the parties involved, an objective which lawyers should not lose sight of. For the above reasons, the father's appeal from the

District Court order of December 22, 1977 denying custody modification is dismissed. to hear this appeal. This Court has no jurisdiction

On the other hand, the District Court

order of May 17, 1977, granting attorney fees and costs to the mother is reversed--the District Court had lost jurisdiction to enter the order.

,Fif ;he

Justic

A



Download 8a442912-c1b1-47d8-acda-e78671d03576.pdf

Montana Law