Marriage of Caras, In re
| Decision Date | 11 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-424,93-424 |
| Citation | 51 St.Rep. 98,868 P.2d 615,263 Mont. 377 |
| Parties | In Re The MARRIAGE OF William Richard CARAS, Petitioner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, and Lauri Christine Caras, Respondent, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Noel K. Larrivee, Larrivee Law Offices, Richard Ranney, Williams & Ranney, Missoula, for appellant.
Richard A. Reep, Reep, Spoon & Gordon, Missoula, for respondent.
In In re Marriage of Caras (1992), 254 Mont. 169, 835 P.2d 715 (Caras I ), we vacated that portion of the parties' dissolution decree which incorporated a marital and property settlement agreement and remanded with instructions that the District Court make findings regarding the conscionability of the agreement. The District Court for the Fourth Judicial District in Missoula County found that the agreement was conscionable. Lauri now appeals the findings, conclusions, and order of the District Court regarding that agreement. Bill cross-appeals the District Court's order regarding attorney fees and costs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The parties have raised the following issues:
1. Did the District Court err when it concluded that the marital and property settlement agreement was conscionable?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it failed to grant a continuance to allow further investigation of the marital estate?
3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it failed to rule on motions filed during trial?
4. Did the District Court err when it ordered each party to pay his and her own attorney fees and costs?
William Richard Caras and Lauri Christine Caras signed a property and marital settlement agreement in August 1990 which was later incorporated in their petition for legal separation. The District Court granted their separation and approved their settlement agreement on October 11, 1990.
On May 21, 1991, the District Court granted Bill's motion to convert the legal separation to a final decree of dissolution. Lauri was successful in her effort to have that decree set aside. However, she did not respond when Bill filed a motion to convert the decree of legal separation to a final decree of dissolution for a second time. On November 22, 1991, the District Court entered the final dissolution decree which incorporated the parties' marital and property settlement agreement from August 1990. Lauri appealed with new counsel of record and we remanded to the District Court.
After this Court's decision and denial of Bill's petition for rehearing Caras I on August 25, 1992, the parties began a course of written discovery which included the exchange of interrogatories and Bill's deposition. On January 25, 1993, the District Court, at Bill's request, set the matter for a nonjury hearing on its March calendar. Three days before trial, Lauri moved the District Court to continue the trial based on a delay in transcribing Bill's deposition and the need for further information from Bill regarding his real estate holdings. The District Court denied Lauri's motion and the trial was held on March 11 and 25, 1993.
At trial, the attorney who had represented Lauri in the preparation of the marital and property settlement agreement was called by Bill to testify regarding his role as Lauri's attorney at the beginning of the dissolution. The only other witnesses who were called to testify were Lauri and Bill.
During the court's recess, Lauri moved the District Court to compel Bill to provide more complete information regarding certain investment property. In response to this motion, Bill filed a motion to protect him from further discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c), M.R.Civ.P. The District Court did not rule on these motions and the trial proceeded to its conclusion.
The District Court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on May 19, 1993, in which it held that the marital and property settlement agreement executed on August 17, 1990, was not unconscionable and should be adopted by the court and incorporated in the final decree of dissolution.
Did the District Court err when it concluded that the marital and property settlement agreement was conscionable?
When it determines the conscionability of a marital and property settlement agreement, a district court
engage[s] in discretionary action which cannot be accurately categorized as either a finding of fact or a conclusion of law. These discretionary judgments made by the trial court are presumed to be correct and will not be disturbed by this Court absent an abuse of discretion by the lower court.
In re Marriage of Hamilton (1992), 254 Mont. 31, 36, 835 P.2d 702, 704-05 (quoting In re Marriage of Danelson (1992), 253 Mont. 310, 317, 833 P.2d 215, 220).
Bill contends that where the parties have agreed to a property distribution pursuant to a separation agreement, the controlling statute is § 40-4-201(2), MCA, and not, as Lauri suggests, the "equitable apportionment" statute at § 40-4-202, MCA. Section 40-4-201(2), MCA, provides that:
In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation, the terms of the separation agreement, except those providing for the support, custody, and visitation of children, are binding upon the court unless it finds, after considering the economic circumstances of the parties and any other relevant evidence produced by the parties ... that the separation agreement is unconscionable. [Emphasis added].
Lauri asserts that she is not advocating a strict application of § 40-4-202, MCA; she advocates its application only to the extent that its various factors would aid the court in making a determination of conscionability. In particular, she argues that without determining the net value of the marital estate, it was impossible for the District Court to make a finding of conscionability. She argues that the District Court failed to find a specific value for the marital estate and merely "outlined" the testimony of three witnesses who gave three different valuations.
In Caras I, Lauri successfully persuaded this Court that her misunderstanding of the final nature of the separation agreement, her hope of reconciliation of the marriage, and the length of time between the execution of the agreement and its incorporation in a decree of dissolution suggested that the agreement may have been unconscionable. Caras I, 835 P.2d at 716-17. However, the language in that opinion should not be construed to mean that a district court commits reversible error by failing to make findings pursuant to § 40-4-202, MCA, when it has before it a separation agreement which distributes marital property. To the extent that language in that decision suggests a contrary conclusion, it is overruled. The factors set forth in § 40-4-202, MCA, must be considered by the district court when dividing the marital estate absent a marital and property settlement agreement between the parties. See In re Marriage of Sirucek (1985), 219 Mont. 334, 341-42, 712 P.2d 769, 773.
Where the parties have reached a separation agreement, a determination of net worth of the marital estate is not required. In re Marriage of Miller (1980), 189 Mont. 356, 616 P.2d 313; see also, In re Marriage of Evert (1982), 198 Mont. 191, 645 P.2d 417. In Miller, we stated that:
[T]he net worth of the parties is a necessary consideration; however, if there is a signed and executed separation agreement, we must conclude that the parties themselves have already made a determination of their net worth as a basis for their decision.
Miller, 616 P.2d at 318. "[W]e will not substitute our conclusions for those of the District Court in the absence of clear and reversible error." Miller 616 P.2d at 318.
At trial, the District Court received various estimates of the net value of the Caras estate. Lauri's first attorney valued the marital estate at $530,000. Bill offered an exhibit valuing the estate as of August 1990 at $290,508. Lauri's estimate of the estate as of August 1990 was $939,502. A financial statement signed by Bill in October 1991, which was introduced by both parties, indicated that Bill's net worth was $1,075,200. Bill introduced testimony that this amount had been overstated.
Apparently, there were no professional appraisals conducted on any component of the marital estate. Presented with these various opinions, the District Court concluded that the parties' agreement,
when taken in its entirety, including the distribution of property, the payment of maintenance in lieu of property, the waiver of obligations for child support and medical care, the associated provisions for support of both [Lauri] and the parties' children, and after considering the economic circumstances of the parties at the time of execution of the parties' marital and property settlement agreement, as well as their current circumstances, is not unconscionable and should be adopted by this court.
After a review of the record, we conclude that the District Court's findings in support of its decision are supported by substantial evidence, are not clearly erroneous, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it held that the parties' marital and property settlement agreement was conscionable.
Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it failed to grant a continuance to allow further investigation of the marital estate?
We will review a district court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion.
[A]ny motion for a continuance of trial is within the sound discretion of the District Court ... [and we] will not overrule a District Court's decision to deny a motion for a continuance of trial unless there is "an affirmative showing that the complaining party has suffered prejudice."
Tri-County...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Bolinger, In re
... ... See McKamey v. State (1994), 268 Mont. 137, 145, 885 P.2d 515, 520; In re Marriage of Caras (1994), 263 Mont. 377, 384, 868 P.2d 615, 619. We stated in Massaro v. Dunham (1979), 184 Mont. 400, 404-05, 603 P.2d 249, 251-52, that a ... ...
-
Prindel v. Ravalli County
... ... ¶ 21 We review a district court's order denying discovery to determine whether the district court abused its discretion. Marriage of Caras (1994), 263 Mont. 377, 384, 868 P.2d 615, 619. "A court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily without employment of conscientious ... ...
-
Caras v. Caras
... 2012 MT 25 270 P.3d 48 364 Mont. 32 In re the MARRIAGE OF Laurie F. CARAS, Petitioner, Appellant, and CrossAppellee,andWilliam R. Caras, Respondent, Appellee, and CrossAppellant. No. DA 110166. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs Nov. 2, 2011.Decided Feb. 1, 2012 ... [270 P.3d 52] For Appellant: Elizabeth Best; Best Law Offices, P.C.; ... ...
-
In re the Marriage of Scott L. Hart
... ... 28 Attorney fees provisions contained in marital settlement agreements are enforceable agreements and the district court is bound by the agreement's terms if they are clear. In re Marriage of Caras, 263 Mont. 377, 385, 868 P.2d 615, 61920 (1994). In determining who is the [360 Mont. 316] prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees, no one factor is dispositive. Doig v. Cascaddan, 282 Mont. 105, 11213, 935 P.2d 268, 272 (1997) (citing E.C.A. Env. Mgt., Inc. v. Toenyes, 208 Mont. 336, 345, ... ...