Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Father and Mother took Child, who was only a few weeks old at the time, shoplifting at a department store. The shoplifting turned into a robbery. Thereafter, the district court granted the petition of the Department of Public Health and Human Services to adjudicate Child as a youth in need of care. Father was later sentenced to twenty years with eighteen years suspended for the offenses. Upon the finding that Father’s treatment plan had not been successful, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to Child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the termination of Father’s parental rights was not an abuse of discretion where the district court did not commit clear error in finding that the treatment plan was unsuccessful. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

Roy Volk and Pamela Dee Volk had a son, RBV, in the fall of 2000. In 2011, the marriage was dissolved. At the time of the divorce, Roy owned two term life insurance policies. While a statutorily-mandated temporary restraining order was still in effect, Roy changed the beneficiary designations on both policies and designated his sister, Valerie Goeser, as the new beneficiary. Just over four months after the divorce was final, Roy died. Valerie received the life insurance proceeds from both policies. Pamela subsequently filed this action on behalf of RBV against Valerie and Roy’s estate seeking a constructive trust over the insurance policy payouts for the benefit of RBV. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Valerie, concluding that Valerie was not unjustly enriched when she received Roy’s life insurance proceeds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Valerie was unjustly enriched because Roy’s errors in changing the beneficiary of his life insurance under the statutorily-mandated restraining order invalidated his designations on the insurance policies, and a constructive trust was created on RBV's behalf as a result of these errors. Remanded. View "Volk v. Goeser" on Justia Law

When Daughter was two years old, Mother and Father dissolved their marriage. The district court approved a stipulated parenting plan entered into by the parties providing that Daughter would split her time equally between the parties in their respective homes in different states. Before Daughter was to enter kindergarten, Father filed a motion to modify the parenting plan. Mother responded with her own proposed parenting plan. The district court’s standing master issued an order amending the parenting plan and awarded custody of Daughter to Mother during the school year. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the standing master’s order amending the parenting plan. View "In re Marriage of Davis" on Justia Law

The marriage of Creed Evans and Dava Bliss was dissolved in 2015. The day before the parties were married, they signed an antenuptial agreement providing that all property held by individually by a party before and during the marriage remained that party’s sole property upon dissolution. During the dissolution proceedings, Evans disputed the validity of the agreement. After a hearing, the standing master issued a declaratory judgment that the agreement was enforceable. The district court issued an order affirming and adopting the standing master’s declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding the agreement valid and enforceable and in determining that more than 150 firearms belonged to Bliss. View "In Marriage of Bliss" on Justia Law

J.H. was the minor child of Mother and Father. The district court granted the petition of the Department of Public Health and Human Service for temporary legal custody of J.H. The Department later filed a permanency plan that did not include the option of placing J.H. with Father. Thereafter, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights. The Department later filed a petition for long-term custody of J.H. and a second permanency plan that sought placement of J.H. with J.H.’s maternal great aunt under a guardianship. The district court granted the Department’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that the Department engaged in reasonable efforts to reunify J.H. with Father; and (2) finding that J.H.’s best interest were served by living with his great maternal aunt, and not with Father. View "In re J.H." on Justia Law

In 1999, the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) entered an order requiring Samuel Shelhamer to pay Tamara Hodges $74 per month in child support. In 2014, CSED modified the order and established Shelhamer’s monthly support obligation at $743 per month. Shelhamer, a warrant officer in the United States Marine Corps, requested an administrative hearing. After a hearing, CSED issued its final administrative order setting Shelhamer’s support obligation at $935 per month. The final decision included Shelhamer’s non-taxable basic housing allowance and non-taxable basic subsistence allowance in Shelhamer's actual income to calculate his child support obligation. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a parent’s military housing and subsistence allowances should be included as part of the parent’s actual income when calculating child support obligations. View "Shelhamer v. Hodges" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) filed a petition seeking emergency protective authority, adjudication of Father’s three minor children as youth in need of care, and temporary legal custody. The district court adjudicated all children as youths in need of care and granted temporary legal custody to DPHHS. In 2015, upon a petition filed by DPHHS and after a hearing, the district court terminated Father’s rights to his three minor children, concluding that Father’s condition that led to the children’s removal was unlikely to change within a reasonable time and that continuation of the parental relationship would likely result in continued abuse or neglect of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in terminating Father’s parental rights. View "In re K.A." on Justia Law

Father and Mother were the biological parents of three minor children. Mother and Grandfather filed a joint petition for termination of Father’s parental rights and for Grandfather to adopt the children. When Father could not be found, the district court clerk of court entered an order directing that service of the summons be made upon Father by publication in the Billings Times newspaper. Father did not respond to the summons, and the clerk of court entered default against Father. After a hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights and granted decrees of adoption for each of the children. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Father was not properly served by publication because the clerk of court, not the district court, entered the order directing service by publication; and (2) the district court erred in making no findings of fact on Grandfather’s standing under either Mont. Code Ann. 42-1-106 or 42-4-302(2). View "Jardine v. Schwartz" on Justia Law

Wife filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Husband. After a bench trial, the district court entered written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution, ordering that certain properties owned by the parties be sold and that the proceeds be put toward paying off delinquent tax liability to the Internal Revenue Service and the Montana Department of Revenue. Wife appealed the court’s finding and conclusion regarding the tax liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in considering the tax liability as marital debt or by including that debt in apportioning the marital estate. View "In re Marriage of Rose" on Justia Law

In 2013, the district court adjudicated Mother’s two minor children youths in need of care. In 2015, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights, concluding that Mother’s conduct or condition rendering her unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time because Mother had an extensive history and current issues related to substance abuse, was homeless, and had no income. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that the conduct or condition that made Mother unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; (2) the district court correctly applied the presumption in Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-604(1) to conclude that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in her children’s best interests; and (3) Mother failed to demonstrate that her counsel was ineffective or that she was prejudiced as a result. View "In re C.W.E." on Justia Law