Montana Supreme Court, 1977

Cicinia v. Cicinia

Cicinia v. Cicinia
Montana Supreme Court · Decided June 22, 1977

Cicinia v. Cicinia

Opinion

No. 13393 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977

ELEANOR H. CICINIA, Plaintiff and Respondent,

GAETANO T. CICINIA, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Honorable Robert Keller, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Moore and Lyrnpus, Kalispell, Montana James D. Moore argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Warden, Walterskirchen & Christiansen, Kalispell, Montana Gary R. Christiansen argued, Kalispell, Montana

Submitted: March 14, 1977 Decided : JUR 2 e 4977 Filed: Mr. J u s r i c e Gene 3 . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Flathead County, s i t t i n g without a j u r y , Hon. Robert S . K e l l e r , D i s t r i c t Judge p r e s i d i n g , g r a n t e d M r k T i FF summary judgment t o L i n an a c t i o n sac e.

U g - alimony p r o v i s i o n s of a f o r e i g n d i v o r c e decree.

Eleanor C i c i n i a o b t a i n e d a d e f a u l t d i v o r c e decree on grounds of d e s e r t i o n , i n c o r p o r a t i n g a v o l u n t a r y p r o p e r t y s e t t l e - ment agreement p a r t of which gave h e r $75 p e r week, payable each Monday f o r t h e balance of h e r l i f e , u n l e s s she remarried.

T h i s amount was t o i n c l u d e c h i l d support and minor medical c a r e u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e n reached m a j o r i t y . The p a r t i e s were married i n 1940 and t h e decree n i s i was dated February 25, 1965, i n t h e s t a t e of New J e r s e y .

Defendant remarried and adopted t h e c h i l d r e n of h i s p r e s e n t w i f e and moved t o K a l i s p e l l , Montana i n 1973. Defendant o p e r a t e s a b u s i n e s s e n t i t l e d "Northwest S p o r t s , Inc.".

Defendant d e f a u l t e d i n h i s alimony payments. On June 27, 1974, p l a i n t i f f brought an a c t i o n i n New J e r s e y t o determine a r r e a r a g e , i n c r e a s e alimony, and determine a t t o r n e y f e e s . De- fendant f i l e d two a f f i d a v i t s i n h i s b e h a l f i n a d d i t i o n t o a deposition. He was r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g by a New J e r s e y law f i r m b u t d i d n o t appear i n person.

The New J e r s e y c o u r t on A p r i l 2 5 , 1975 g r a n t e d judgment i n t h e sum of $3,995. P l a i n t i f f ' s prayer f o r a d d i t i o n a l alimony was denied. On June 23, 1975, t h e New J e r s e y c o u r t awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount of $2,000 and $196.80 i n c o s t s . The New J e r s e y judgment was n o t appealed i n New J e r s e y .

The p r e s e n t a c t i o n was f i l e d i n Montana t o e n f o r c e t h e New J e r s e y judgment on September 15, 1975.

Defendant contends t h e judgment cannot be enforced i n Montana a s i t contravenes t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s of defendant and i s a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y of t h e s t a t e of Montana.

Defendant a l s o p e t i t i o n s t h e Montana c o u r t t o modify t h e New J e r s e y d e c r e e p r o s p e c t i v e l y and r e t r o a c t i v e l y . I n t h i s regard, defendant speaks t o t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e "decree n i s i " of February 25, 1965, y e t t h e record i n d i c a t e d t h i s decree was made f i n a l May 26, 1965.

Hon. Robert S. K e l l e r , d i s t r i c t judge, e n t e r e d summary judg- ment May 5 , 1976, under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., a f t e r b r i e f s were submitted and o r a l argument h e a r d , f o r p l a i n t i f f on t h e New J e r s e y judgment w i t h t h e memo: "The Defendant r a i s e s no f a c t u a l i s s u e s . The answer t o t h e complaint, c o n s i s t s of c o n c l u s i o n s , which r a i s e i s s u e s of law, and a r e r e s a d j u d i c a t a .

"The ' c o u n t e r - p e t i t i o n ' t o t h e complaint i s something t h i s Court does n o t understand." Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e summary judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and p r e s e n t s t h e s e i s s u e s t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. Can summary judgment be e n t e r e d on a f o r e i g n d e c r e e which enforcement of contravenes p u b l i c p o l i c y o r laws of Montana?

2. Does f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t compel enforcement o f a f o r e i g n d e c r e e t h a t l a c k s f i n a l i t y i n New J e r s e y ?

4. Can a decree of d i v o r c e i s s u e d i n a n o t h e r s t a t e be modified i n Montana?

Defendant appeared by counsel and a f f i d a v i t and d e p o s i t i o n i n defense of h i s p o s i t i o n a t t h e c o u r t h e a r i n g i n New J e r s e y , which denied him r e l i e f on A p r i l 25, 1975. He d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e f i n a l i t y of t h a t c o u r t ' s judgment on which t h e h e a r i n g was brought o r c h a l l e n g e t h e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n , nor d i d h e a p p e a l from t h a t c o u r t ' s judgment.

W n o t e h e r e t h a t a t a l l times p e r t i n e n t h e r e t o , defendant e h a s been v i g o r o u s l y r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . The New J e r s e y judgments were f i n a l judgments rendered by a c o u r t which had proper j u r i s d i c t i o n o n l y a f t e r an a d v e r s a r y proceeding.

The Montana a c t i o n merely seeks a judgment based upon t h e f i n a l judgments of t h e New J e r s e y c o u r t . The d o c t r i n e s of r e s j u d i c a t a and c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l b a r t h e r e l i t i g a t i o n of t h e m a t t e r s determined by t h e New J e r s e y c o u r t . The d o c t r i n e of f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t a l l o w s t h e enforcement of t h e judgment.

A r t . I V , S e c t i o n '1, United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ; S e c t i o n 93- 1001-20, R.C.M. 1947; 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments $ 5 1226,1227,1230.

The t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e p l e a d i n g s of defendant r a i s e no f a c t i s s u e s b u t u l t i m a t e i s s u e s of law which a r e r e s adjudicata. -2 Judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . r ,, /.' "

Justice 'r W_e_ ,.._4- ' .

Concur : Chief J u s t i c e * A

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.