Marriage of Haney, In re, 93-335
| Decision Date | 13 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-335,93-335 |
| Citation | 267 Mont. 107,882 P.2d 497 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Delilah HANEY, Petitioner and Respondent, and Guy L. Haney, Respondent and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Kenneth R. Olson, Great Falls, for appellant.
Susan L. Weber, Great Falls, for respondent.
Guy L. Haney (Guy) appeals an order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, which awarded Delilah Haney (Delilah) maintenance. We reverse.
Guy and Delilah were married for thirty-five years. Delilah raised the couple's five children who have attained the age of majority. Delilah filed for dissolution on June 13, 1990. Guy filed his response and the parties agreed to divide the marital assets and debts. They could not, however, agree on the maintenance issue; Guy argued that he should pay maintenance in the amount of $300 per month for two years, while Delilah contended that she should be awarded $300 per month for five years.
Notwithstanding the contention on the part of both Guy and Delilah that $300 per month was adequate, with the only question being the number of years duration, the District Court awarded Delilah permanent maintenance of $400 per month. In addition, that amount would increase to $600 per month if Delilah became unemployed by reason of age, sickness or disease.
The court found that Delilah worked three jobs, seven days a week, for a net pay of $435 per month while her expenses totaled $875. The court found that Guy had the ability to earn substantially more income than Delilah, referring to his snow removal contract and various equipment which he owned. After deducting Guy's living expenses, the District Court concluded that Guy would net in excess of $210 per month over and above the $300 maintenance award to Delilah. That was the apparent basis for the District Court's conclusion that Guy had the ability to pay $400 per month maintenance to Delilah.
Guy presents the following issue:
Did the District Court err by awarding Delilah $400 per month permanent maintenance?
It is well settled that this Court will scrutinize the district court's legal conclusions and examine whether the court interpreted the law correctly. In re Marriage of Danelson (1992), 253 Mont. 310, 317, 833 P.2d 215, 219-20. After an equitable division of marital property, a district court is required to apply the two-prong test of § 40-4-203, MCA, to determine whether a maintenance award is appropriate. See In re Marriage of Eschenbacher and Crepeau (1992), 253 Mont. 139, 142-43, 831 P.2d 1353, 1355-56. Section 40-4-203, MCA, provides in pertinent part:
(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 [her] reasonable needs; and
(b) is unable to support [her]self through appropriate employment.... [Emphasis added.]
Here, the District Court found that Delilah worked three jobs, seven days a week, for net pay of $435 per month while her expenses totalled $875 per month and that she was unable to support herself through appropriate employment. The court, however, did not make a finding concerning whether Delilah lacked sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs. "Sufficient property" is property which is "income-producing rather than income-consuming property." Marriage of Eschenbacher, 831 P.2d at 1356.
In this case, a review of the record reveals that the majority of the property awarded to Delilah was income-consuming property; a car, the trailer house with adjoining land and household furnishings. However, Delilah also received income-producing property--one-half of Guy's Teamsters pension. The court failed to discuss the pension award and to set forth when payments could be anticipated under the pension and to then consider the relationship to the maintenance award. We conclude this is a basis for reversal.
Without any explanation on the part of the court as to the reason it disregarded the agreement of the parties that $300 per month for maintenance was appropriate, the District Court awarded Delilah permanent maintenance of $400 per month with an escalation to $600 per month if Delilah became unemployed.
Under Rule 54(c), M.R.Civ.P., "every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayville v. Mayville
... ... We affirm. 2. Husband and wife divorced in 2003, after twenty-seven years of marriage. At the time of the divorce, husband earned more than $100,000 per year working as an information ... A pension is just another type of income-producing asset. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Haney, 267 Mont. 107, 882 P.2d 497, 499 (1994); Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 767 A.2d 415, 419 ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Toavs
... ... We agree. In In re Marriage of Haney (1994), 267 Mont. 107, 110, 882 P.2d 497, 499, we stated: ... Under Rule 54(c), M.R.Civ.P., "every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the ... ...