Malley v. Malley ( 1980 )

NO. 80-24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
DAVID EUGENE MALLEY,
Respondent and Appellant,
-vs-
PATRICIA MARIE MALLEY,
Petitioner and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court-Of t h e 'First Judicial District,
In.and For the County of Lewis and Clark,
The Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
David E. Malley, Pro Se, Helena, MJntana
For Respondent :
William McCarvel, Spokane, Washington
Submitted on Briefs: July 10, 1980
~ecided:NOV 1 8 1980
Filed: ROV 18
.fl.-&
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . S h e a d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
David Eugene M a l l e y , a p p e a r i n g p r o s e t a p p e a l s f r o m a n
o r d e r of p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n e n t e r e d by t h e L e w i s and C l a r k
County D i s t r i c t C o u r t upon the dissolution of h i s marriage.
Because there is no transcript of this hearing, we are
c o m p e l l e d t o v a c a t e t h e judgment and o r d e r a n o t h e r h e a r i n g s o
t h a t a r e c o r d c a n be made.
The w i f e , P a t r i c i a M a r i e M a l l e y , f i l e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n
o f t h e m a r r i a g e on A p r i l 3 , 1 9 7 9 . The c o u p l e had b e e n m a r r i e d
s i n c e J u n e 2 6 , 1 9 7 5 and had no c h i l d r e n . Each p a r t y , h o w e v e r ,
had been previously married, and each had children by a
previous marriage. Neither t h e wife nor t h e husband adopted
any of the other's children. The husband is a sales
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and t h e w i f e i s a s e c r e t a r y .
The husband did not f o r m a l l y respond to the wife's
p e t i t i o n for dissolution, but participated i n two t r i a l c o u r t
hearings. The w i f e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t t r i a l and i s
now r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l i n t h i s a p p e a l . There is pending
before u s a motion t o d i s m i s s by w i f e ' s counsel because t h e
h u s b a n d h a s f a i l e d t o " c i t e any p l e a d i n g , evidence, or t r i a l
t e s t i m o n y which would s e r v e a s a b a s i s f o r h i s a r g u m e n t . " The
wife's counsel wants us to dismiss this appeal because the
husband h a s n o t r a i s e d any r e v i e w a b l e i s s u e s . But t h e i s s u e he
r a i s e s ( t h e f a i r n e s s of t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n d e c r e e ) can
o n l y be r e v i e w e d where t h e r e is a record of t h e proceedings
below. I t would be u n f a i r t o t h e e x t r e m e t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l
and d e n y any r e l i e f t o t h e h u s b a n d w h e r e t h e f a i l u r e t o h a v e a
r e c o r d c a n n o t be l a i d a t h i s d o o r s t e p . W should n o t have t o
e
remind a s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y t o l i t i g a t i o n i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h a t
t h e judgment o b t a i n e d i s p l a c e d i n j e o p a r d y where t h e r e i s no
record of t h e proceedings.
F o l l o w i n g t h e two h e a r i n g s c o n c e r n i n g a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f
t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , t h e w i f e t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , and t h e h u s b a n d ,
p r o s e , s u b m i t t e d p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . The t r i a l
c o u r t v i r t u a l l y a d o p t e d v e r b a t i m t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s
p r o p o s e d by c o u n s e l f o r t h e w i f e . The h u s b a n d now c o n t e n d s i n
this appeal that the trial court entered an inequitable
property division. He claims his "pocket is now empty."
A l t h o u g h he h a s n o t f i l e d a b r i e f i n t h i s Court, he a s k s t h i s
C o u r t t o r e v i e w t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t
and remand the case for a redetermination of the property
distribution.
Unfortunately, we cannot review the husband's
c o n t e n t i o n s because a trial record is necessary t o do t h i s .
But that is not the husband's fault. In Matter of Geary
( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 204, 562 P.2d 821, w e s t r e s s e d t h e need f o r a
t r i a l record:
"Without a t r a n s c r i p t , t h i s Court is placed i n
t h e p o s i t i o n of a t t e m p t i n g t o r e c o n s t r u c t a
r e c o r d on a p p e a l . Such a t a s k b e i n g o f t e n
i m p o s s i b l e and u n n e c e s s a r y , t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l
becomes i l l u s o r y , a r i g h t w i t h o u t s u b s t a n c e . "
That p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s equally here. I n Matter of Guardianship
o f G u l l e t t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 1 3 2 , 566 P.2d 3 9 6 , w e r e v e r s e d a
contested custody case because the hearing had not been
recorded s o a s t o e n a b l e e f f e c t i v e a p p e l l a t e review. W e noted
i n G u l l e t t e , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s by s t a t u t e , a c o u r t o f
record, and t h i s implies that a record will be k e p t of the
proceedings. Recently, in Schneider v. Ostwald ( C a u s e No.
80-118, Decided October 8 , 1980), we s e t aside a t r i a l court
contempt o r d e r b e c a u s e t h e contempt o f c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s were
not recorded.
W must r e a c h
e t h e same r e s u l t h e r e . The r e c o r d is
s i l e n t a s t o why a c o u r t r e p o r t e r was n o t p r e s e n t . But r e a s o n s
aside, the f a i l u r e t o record the property d i s t r i b u t i o n hearings
has effectively denied the husband appellate review of the
t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment.
The judgment i s v a c a t e d and t h e c a s e remanded f o r a
full hearing, with proceedings to be reported in a manner
s o t h a t a p p e l l a t e review can reach t h e i s s u e s .
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison dissenting:
I dissent.
Viewing the record here, we have an appellant who has
previously had experience in a divorce proceeding, appearing
pro se in this case, and now putting the trial court in error
for failing to distribute the property properly. The majority
rely on our previous holding in In Matter of Guardianship of
Gullette (1977), 173 Mont. 132, 566 P.2d 396, a case involv-
ing the guardianship of children. I find our holding in that
case clearly distinguishable. Here, appellant was offered
a full and complete opportunity by the District Court to
present his case, to file objections and to have the court
consider findings of fact and conclusions of law, prior to
the District Court's adoption of same. As I understand the
law, failure to object to the court's findings and conclusions
bars the raising of the issue on appeal.
What the majority holds is that whenever a court reporter
is not present, the case will be reversed for lack of a record
to be reviewed. This is directly contrary to the presumption
of correctness of the judgment of the District Court. Here,
appellant went through two hearings without objections and
now seeks reversal on a technicality.
I would affirm.
Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell dissenting:
I concur in the foregoing dissent of Mr. Justice John
Conway Harrison.
Chief Justice \\