Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 18232.

Attorney(S)

Allen R. Derr Associates, Boise, for defendant-appellant. Allen R. Derr, argued. Cosho, Humphrey, Greener Welsh, Boise, for plaintiff-respondent. Louis H. Cosho, argued.

Judges

BAKES, Chief Justice.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Edward J. McNelis v. Marla P. McNelis — Supreme Court of Idaho (Feb. 22, 1991)

Factual and Procedural Background

Edward and Marla McNelis were married in 1961 and had two children who are now adults. Marla ceased outside employment after marriage and was a full-time homemaker for the 27-year marriage; Edward held a high-ranking position at Moore Financial Corporation and earned at least $73,000 per year at the time of the divorce hearing. Marla suffered multiple cancers (thyroid in 1968; cervical and lung cancer in the 1980s), underwent treatment with adverse side effects, had the upper lobe of her right lung removed, and continued to experience physical and emotional effects at the time of trial. The marital community previously had substantial assets (about $2,000,000 in 1985) but had lost most assets and was in financial disarray by the time of the divorce.

In 1988 Edward filed for divorce. A magistrate granted the divorce, found Marla to be the innocent spouse, concluded she had no present earning capacity and limited future employment prospects (in part due to health and long absence from the workforce), made an unequal division of community property in her favor, and awarded her $2,000 per month in permanent maintenance. Edward appealed the magistrate's award of permanent maintenance to the district court. The district court agreed Marla was entitled to spousal maintenance but determined the magistrate erred by not setting forth specific findings justifying permanent (rather than temporary) maintenance, and remanded for such findings. Marla appealed the district court's remand to the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held the district court erred in remanding and affirmed the magistrate's award of permanent alimony.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the magistrate's factual findings were sufficient to support an award of permanent spousal maintenance under Idaho Code § 32-705.
Whether the district court properly remanded the case for additional specific findings to justify permanent rather than temporary maintenance.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
First Interstate Bank of Idaho v. West, 107 Idaho 851, 693 P.2d 1053 (1984)	Standard of review when this Court reviews a district court's appellate review of a magistrate's decision (independent appellate review with due regard for district court).	The Court invoked this standard in conducting its independent review of the magistrate's decision while giving due regard to the district court's ruling.
Nicholls v. Blaser, 102 Idaho 559, 633 P.2d 1137 (1981)	Same standard of appellate review principle regarding review of magistrate decisions.	Used with First Interstate to frame the Court's standard of review.
Shurtliff v. Shurtliff, 112 Idaho 1031, 739 P.2d 330 (1987)	Where substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court's findings of fact, those findings will be upheld on appeal.	The Court applied this principle and found the magistrate's findings were supported by substantial evidence and therefore upheld them.
Hentges v. Hentges, 115 Idaho 192, 765 P.2d 1094 (1988)	Where reasons clearly appear from the record, a trial court's failure to state specific reasons may be disregarded on appeal.	The Court relied on this principle to conclude the magistrate's failure to state additional specific reasons for permanent maintenance did not require remand because the reasons were apparent in the record.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by stating the applicable standard of review: when reviewing a district court's appellate review of a magistrate decision, the Supreme Court conducts an independent appellate review of the magistrate's decision while giving due regard to the district court's ruling (citing First Interstate and Nicholls). It further noted that findings of fact supported by substantial and competent evidence will be upheld (citing Shurtliff).

The Court examined Idaho Code § 32-705, which permits maintenance for an innocent spouse who (1) lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and (2) is unable to support himself or herself through employment, and directs the court to consider relevant factors (including financial resources, time necessary for retraining, duration of marriage, age and physical/emotional condition, and ability of the other spouse to meet needs).

The magistrate's findings, as recited by the Court, included that Marla was the innocent spouse, lacked sufficient property to meet her needs, could not obtain employment at present because her medical technician skills were outdated, and would require approximately two to three years to retrain. The magistrate expressly noted Marla's medical history and its adverse effects on her stamina and ability to complete retraining, describing the lung cancer as "particularly pernicious" with a high mortality rate. The magistrate concluded a fixed-term maintenance award would be inequitable given her medical infirmity and awarded permanent maintenance.

The district court agreed Marla was entitled to spousal maintenance but remanded for additional specific findings supporting permanence. The Supreme Court concluded the magistrate's findings, taken as a whole and supported by substantial evidence, were sufficient to justify permanent maintenance under § 32-705. Relying on Hentges, the Court held that where the reasons are evident in the record, the magistrate's omission of additional specific explanatory findings did not require remand. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's remand and affirmed the magistrate's award.

Holding and Implications

The district court's decision is vacated, and the magistrate's decision is affirmed.

Implications and direct effects:

The magistrate's award of permanent alimony (maintenance of $2,000 per month) to Marla McNelis is affirmed and remains in effect.
The district court's remand for additional specific findings is vacated as unnecessary because the magistrate's findings and the record adequately support a permanent award under I.C. § 32-705.
Costs are awarded to the appellant (Edward McNelis); no attorney fees were allowed.
The opinion does not announce a new rule of law beyond application of existing standards (the Court applied statutory criteria and existing appellate-review principles and cited Hentges for the proposition that stated reasons appearing in the record can cure an omission of specific findings).

Judgment: Affirmed (magistrate); District court vacated. Costs to appellant; no attorney fees.

Show full summary ...

Edward J. McNELIS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marla P. McNELIS, Defendant-Appellant.

BAKES, Chief Justice.

Edward and Marla McNelis were married on June 13, 1961, in Boise, Idaho. They had two children, both of whom are now adults. Marla was trained as a medical technician, but after she married Edward she became a full-time homemaker and did not work outside the home during their entire 27-year marriage. Edward is a high-ranking official of the Moore Financial Corporation and heads the company's personal banking project. He earned at least $73,000 a year at the time of the divorce hearing in 1988. At the time of the trial, Mr. McNelis was 49, and Mrs. McNelis was 48.

In 1968 Mrs. McNelis was diagnosed and treated for thyroid cancer. In 1986 she was diagnosed to have cancer of the cervix and was treated with radiation therapy and cesium implants, both of which had adverse side effects. During that treatment doctors discovered she also had lung cancer and totally removed the upper lobe of her right lung. Her doctors consider her to be in remission from these recent bouts of cancer, but the lung cancer has only a 30-40% survival rate. She continued to suffer emotional and physical side effects from her illnesses and treatments at the time of trial.

In 1985 the marital community was worth approximately $2,000,000, much of which was gained through Mr. McNelis's real estate investments. However, by the time of the divorce, the community had lost most of its assets, owed quite a bit of money, and was in financial disarray.

In 1988, Mr. McNelis filed for divorce. Magistrate Stephen Drescher granted a divorce but determined that Mrs. McNelis was an innocent spouse, as Mr. McNelis conceded that he had been unfaithful during the marriage. The magistrate also concluded that Mrs. McNelis had no present earning capacity and slight chances for future employment prospects, given her health and the length of time she had been out of the work force. In light of these conclusions, the magistrate made an unequal division of the community property in favor of Mrs. McNelis and awarded her $2000 a month in permanent maintenance.

Mr. McNelis appealed the magistrate's award of permanent maintenance to the district court. The district court agreed that Mrs. McNelis was entitled to spousal maintenance, but found that the magistrate had erred in failing to set forth specific findings which justified the award of permanent rather than temporary maintenance. The district court remanded the case in order for the magistrate to set forth such specific findings. Mrs. McNelis brought the present appeal from the district court's decision. We now hold that the district court erred in remanding the case, as we find the magistrate's findings sufficient to support the award of permanent alimony.

When this Court reviews a case appealed from a district court's appellate review of a magistrate's decision, our standard of review is to make an independent appellate review of the magistrate's decision, after giving due regard to the district court's ruling. First Interstate Bank of Idaho v. West, 107 Idaho 851, 693 P.2d 1053 (1984); Nicholls v. Blaser, 102 Idaho 559, 633 P.2d 1137 (1981). If substantial and competent evidence supports the magistrate court's findings of fact, we will uphold those findings on appeal. Shurtliff v. Shurtliff, 112 Idaho 1031, 739 P.2d 330 (1987).

The magistrate relied on I.C. § 32-705 to support the award of permanent alimony to Mrs. McNelis. I.C. § 32-705 states:

32-705. Maintenance. — 1. Where a divorce is granted, for an offense of either spouse, including a divorce granted upon the complaint of the party at fault, the court may grant a maintenance order for the innocent spouse if it finds that the innocent spouse seeking maintenance:

(a) Lacks sufficient property to provide for his or her reasonable needs; and

(b) Is unable to support himself or herself through employment.

2. The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time the court deems just, after considering all relevant factors which may include:

(a) The financial resources of the spouse seeking maintenance, including the marital property apportioned to said spouse, and said spouse's ability to meet his or her needs independently;

(b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education and training to enable the spouse seeking maintenance to find employment;

(d) The age and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance;

(e) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his or her needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance;

(f) The tax consequences to each spouse.

Pursuant to section 32-705, the magistrate found that Mrs. McNelis could not independently support herself through employment before first retraining for several years. He also pointed out that the various forms of cancer from which she had suffered "impaired her health," and he specifically noted that the lung cancer was "particularly pernicious" and "has a high rate of mortality." Based on these findings, the magistrate concluded that:

Although I am of the opinion that Idaho Code 32-705, in conjunction with the relevant appellate authorities, inclines the trial courts towards setting a fixed duration of spousal maintenance . . . I think such a fixed term is grossly inequitable in a case such as this where the innocent and needy spouse is medically infirm.

On appeal, the district court agreed that Mrs. McNelis was entitled to spousal maintenance, stating that "this Court finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the magistrate's finding that Respondent is presently unable to support herself through employment and, therefore, entitled to spousal maintenance." (Emphasis in original). However, the district court found that the magistrate "erred by not setting forth specific reasons for its discretionary order for permanent spousal support" (emphasis in original), rather than temporary support, and remanded the case to the magistrate to make such findings. We disagree with the district court's decision to remand and affirm the magistrate's judgment.

I.C. § 32-705 permits an award of maintenance if the recipient is an innocent spouse, lacks sufficient property to provide for his or her needs, and cannot adequately support him or herself through employment. In this case, the magistrate found that Mrs. McNelis was the "innocent spouse"; that she lacked sufficient property to support herself; that she could not obtain employment at the present time because her medical technician skills were outdated; and that it would take approximately two to three years for her to retrain herself. These findings are supported by substantial evidence.

From those findings the magistrate concluded that the maintenance award to Mrs. McNelis should be permanent rather than fixed in duration. The magistrate court's opinion clearly reflects that it was concerned about Mrs. McNelis' medical history, which suggested to him that she probably will never be able to retrain herself because of her bouts with cancer, which have sapped her physical and emotional strength, and the effect they have had on her stamina and ability to complete a retraining course. Viewing the record as a whole, we hold that the magistrate's findings were adequately supported by the record in this case, and thus we affirm the magistrate's award of permanent alimony. Hentges v. Hentges, 115 Idaho 192, 195, 765 P.2d 1094, 1097 (1988) ("Where, as here, the reasons clearly appear from the record, a failure to state specific reasons [supporting an unequal community property distribution] may be disregarded on appeal.").

The district court's decision is vacated, and the magistrate's decision is affirmed. Costs to appellant. No attorney fees allowed.

BISTLINE, JOHNSON, BOYLE and McDEVITT, JJ., concur.

McNELIS v. McNELIS