Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Three minor children had potential claims against their father (Father) and their father’s business arising out of an automobile accident that killed their mother. An attorney petitioned the district court to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to determine if litigation was in the children’s best interests and counsel to pursue those claims on the children’s behalf. Father objected to the attorney’s application for the appointment of a GAL, contending that his family is financially secure and that pursuing further insurance coverage would be traumatic for his children. The district court determined that Father had a conflict of interest with the children because he would be the named defendant in a suit filed on their behalf and appointed a GAL to determine whether litigation was in the best interests of Father’s children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a GAL to determine whether the pursuit of certain legal claims would be in the best interests of Father’s children. View "In re Conservatorship of Soule" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married in California when Child was born. They subsequently divorced, and the parties agreed to a parenting plan that was approved by a California court. That agreement specified that Father did not have to pay any child support. The California court adopted that provision as part of its final order. When Child was approximately two years old, Mother moved to Montana and married Petitioner. Four years later, Petitioner filed a petition seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights so that Petitioner could adopt Child. The sole basis for the petition was that Father was an unfit parent for failure to pay child support. The district court concluded that there was no basis for terminating Father’s parental rights and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) giving full faith and credit to the parenting plan and child support order entered by the California court; and (2) refusing to terminate the parental rights of Father. View "In re Adoption of P.T.H." on Justia Law

In 2011, Wife petitioned to dissolve her marriage with Husband. In 2014, the district court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a decree of dissolution dissolving the parties’ marriage and dividing the marital property. Husband appealed, challenging the district court’s apportionment of the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dissolution of the marriage of the parties but reversed and remanded for a more equitable apportionment of the marital estate, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to achieve an equitable distribution of the marital estate; and (2) the court’s award constituted an abuse of discretion resulting in substantial injustice to Husband. View "In re Marriage of Trusler" on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her five minor children, who had been adjudicated as youths in need of care. The district court concluded that Mother’s conduct or condition that made her an unfit parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not misapprehend the effect of the evidence in reaching its conclusion that Mother was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

Wife filed a petition for legal separation, and Husband’s answer requested the court to enter a decree of dissolution. After a trial, the Standing Master apportioned the marital estate, denied Husband’s request for spousal maintenance, and denied both parties’ request for attorney’s fees. The district court affirmed and adopted the Standing Master’s report in its entirety. Husband appealed, arguing that the apportionment of the bulk of the marital estate to Wife was not fair and equitable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in reviewing and adopting the Standing Master’s marital estate division. View "In re Marriage of Kostelnik" on Justia Law

After a trial, the district court entered a dissolution decree dissolving the marriage of Gordon and Nancy Clark. Gordon appealed, challenging the district court’s valuation and distribution of the marital estate. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s valuation of the ranch and the structure of its equalization payment order, holding that the court acted within its discretion to order an up-front equalization payment and that the court’s valuation was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) reversed the final property distribution, as the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider tax liabilities associated with selling the ranch. Remanded for further consideration of such tax liabilities and entry of an amended property distribution order. View "In re Marriage of Clark" on Justia Law

In 2011, Debora Smith filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Glenn Smith. After a trial, the district court entered an order dissolving the parties’ marriage and distributing their marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion by ordering the division of Glenn’s social security benefits; (2) the district court abused its discretion in determining the maintenance award to Debora; (3) because questions of equitable distribution and spousal maintenance were intertwined, the district court may reconsider these issues and the calculation of the equalization payment to the extent necessary to enter a revised decree; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Debora a 2006 SeaDoo watercraft vehicle. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned three separate orders entered by the district court during proceedings resulting in the termination of Mother’s parental rights to her three minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rescinding the Office of the State Public Defender’s (OPD) appointment of counsel for Mother’s youngest child and denying OPD’s motion to appoint counsel after the termination hearing; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that Mother’s conduct or condition made her unfit to parent and was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; (3) the Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children and to reunite Mother with her children; and (4) Mother was not denied her due process rights in the termination proceedings. View "In re T.D.H." on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her child, finding that Mother had subjected the child to aggravated circumstances and that Mother had failed to comply with her treatment plan, and the condition rendering Mother unfit was unlikely to change in a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it determined that the Department of Public Health and Human Services had made reasonable efforts to provide reunification services; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it terminated Mother’s parental rights. View "In re J.O." on Justia Law

Father and Mother, who were never married, had a daughter. Following the end of their relationship, the parties co-parented the child for a period of time before executing a stipulated final parenting plan and formalizing their custody agreement. The parties subsequently each filed a proposed amended parenting plan requesting primary custody of the child. The district court concluded that Mother had been the primary parent of the child and should be allowed to relocate to Elko, Nevada with Mother. The court then approved a final parenting plan that limited Father to one long weekend of visitation per month. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in determining that it would be in the child’s best interests to relocate with Mother to Elko; (2) did not err by limiting Father’s visitations with the child while she resides in Nevada; and (3) did not err by denying Father’s motion for relief from the judgment and request for a new hearing. View "In re Parenting of S.E.L." on Justia Law