Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, the district court issued a dissolution decree dissolving the marriage of Melinda Edwards and Jim Edwards. In its decree, the court divided a marital estate valued at $2.25 million. The majority of marital assets were held in Jim’s corporation, Bi Lo Foods, Inc. In an attempt to equitably divide the marital assets, the district court directed Jim to undertake an IRS-regulated divisive reorganization of Bi Lo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in ordering Jim to undertake a divisive reorganization of Bi Lo; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in valuing and distributing the martial estate. View "In re Marriage of Edwards" on Justia Law

In 2012, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her twins, finding that Mother had received counseling and subsequently executed a knowing and voluntary relinquishment of her rights. The Supreme Court remanded for the district court to make a determination of whether Mother had received the required relinquishment counseling or whether good cause existed to waive the requirement. On remand, the district court found that the counseling received by Mother satisfied the counseling provisions of Mont. Code Ann. 42-2-409. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was substantial evidence to support the district court’s finding that, before signing an affidavit relinquishing her parental rights, Mother received counseling required by section 42-2-409; and (2) a deficiency in the reporting requirement was harmless. View "In re B.J.T.H." on Justia Law

In 1998, Steven and Susan Buck were married in California. For the next twenty years, the Bucks lived outside of the United States. In 2001, while living in Indonesia, the Bucks purchased land near Kalispell and built a house. In 2010, Susan moved to Florida, and Steven remained in Indonesia. In 2013, Susan filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Montana. Steven moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Susan neither resided in nor was domiciled in Montana for the ninety days preceding her petition for dissolution. The district court denied the motion, concluding that it had jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any jurisdictional defect was cured when Susan established domicile for ninety days and filed a supplemental pleading alleging as much. View "In re Marriage of Buck" on Justia Law

S.B.C. was a Naive American child whose biological parents were enrolled members of the Blackfeet Tribe (Tribe). When S.B.C. was approximately four months old he was removed from Mother’s care and placed with Foster Mother. The district court later terminated both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and granted legal custody to Child Services with the right to consent to the adoption of S.B.C. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by denying the Tribe’s motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Blackfeet Tribal Court; (2) did not abuse its discretion by terminating Father’s parental rights; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by terminating Mother’s parental rights. View "Matter of S.B.C." on Justia Law

In 2003, the marriage of Tonia Marez and David Marshall was dissolved by decree. For the next decade, the parties were involved in a bitter dispute over the parenting of their minor daughter. In 2013, after the daughter reached the age of fourteen, David moved to hold Tonia in contempt for failure to comply with the parenting plan. Tonia subsequently moved to hold David in contempt for failure to pay child support. David then moved for sanctions against Tonia for filing numerous pleadings with the intent to “harass, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” The district court granted David’s motion for contempt, denied Tonia’s motion for contempt, and imposed sanctions against Tonia. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the order finding Tonia in contempt and the order refusing to find David in contempt, as the record supported the district court’s conclusions; and (2) declined to address the merits of the sanctions against Tonia, as the award of sanctions was not yet a final judgment because it did not include a necessary determination of the amount of costs and attorney fees awarded. View "In re Marriage of Marez" on Justia Law

Mother filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father, who was incarcerated. Mother’s petition relied on Father’s alleged abandonment of the parties’ child and failure to support the child. After Father, who was unrepresented, was served he attempted to comply with the summons but failed to answer the petition in a timely manner. The district court entered a default judgment terminating Father’s parental rights based solely on his failure to answer the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court incorrectly applied the law when it terminated Father’s parental rights without an accompanying petition for adoption and by a default judgment with no hearing, no evidence, and no findings. View "Bergsing v. Cardona" on Justia Law

In 2011, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with Wife. In 2014, the district court entered a final decree of dissolution and entered a final parenting plan for the parties’ three minor children. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the children’s best interest to reside primarily with Mother and in awarding primary custody of the children to Mother; but (2) the district court abused its discretion with regard to Father’s child support obligation. Remanded for redetermination of child support or for entry of findings explaining why clear and convincing evidence supported any departure from the uniform child support guidelines adopted by the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services. View "In re Marriage of Pesanti" on Justia Law

After Mother and Father, the parents of two children, divorced, Father married Stepmother, and the two children resided with Father and Stepmother. Stepmother filed petitions for adoption of the children and an order terminating Mother’s parental rights. Thereafter, the district court entered a decree of adoption in Stepmother’s favor and terminated Mother’s parental rights to the children, finding that Mother had willfully abandoned the children and had not supported them. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Montana’s right to equal protection requires that counsel be appointed for indigent parents in termination proceedings brought under the Adoption Act; and (2) on remand, the district court was directed to appoint counsel for Mother if it determined that she was financially eligible. View "In re Adoption of A.W.S." on Justia Law

In 2007, the district court granted dissolution of the marriage of Husband and Wife. Multiple appeals and other related cases followed. In 2013, the district court issued an amended judgment in which it revised downward from an earlier judgment the amount of money Husband owed Wife and held that Wife had the right to have the judgment entered as a foreign judgment in Idaho where Husband retained property. Husband appealed this amended judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arguments Husband raised on appeal were either not properly before the Court. The Court also granted Wife’s request that Husband be sanctioned as a vexatious litigant, as sanctions were necessary to curb further abusive litigant by Husband. View "In re Marriage of Guill" on Justia Law

In 2003, a child (Child) was born to Tracy Cumber. Steven Higgins was found to be the birth father and was designated the primary residential parent. Steven subsequently married Karen Higgins. Steven died in 2009. Tracy was subsequently granted primary residential custody of the Child, and the Child started living with Tracy and her husband, Randy Cumber. In 2011, Randy adopted the Child. In the meantime, Karen filed a petition requesting visitation with the Child. The district court granted the petition, and the Cumbers appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not apply the correct analysis when it determined that visitation was in the best interests of the Child. View "Higgins v. Cumber" on Justia Law