Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Upon the dissolution of their marriage, Husband and Wife entered into a dissolution settlement agreement that provided that Wife was entitled to half of Husband’s federal retirement benefits entered during the parties’ marriage. Wife later sought an order to show cause alleging that Husband violated the agreement by not naming her as the beneficiary of his Survivorship Benefit Plan. The district court granted Wife’s motion, concluding that the agreement awarded Wife a portion of Husband’s Survivorship Annuity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of the agreement reflected the parties’ intent that Husband was to retain ownership of the Survivorship Annuity after the dissolution. View "In re Marriage of Bushnell" on Justia Law

The district court adjudicated M.J.C. a youth in need of care and granted temporary legal custody of M.J.C. to the Department of Public Health and Human Services based on physical neglect by Mother, and absence of a father. A court-ordered paternity test later determined D.W. to be the father of M.J.C. After Mother and D.W. failed to comply with the requirements of their treatment plans, the State filed a petition to terminate their parental rights. The district court terminated the parental rights of Mother and D.W. after a hearing. D.W. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence.View "In re M.J.C." on Justia Law

Kelisa Allen and Justin Tucker were divorced in Arizona, after which Kelisa relocated to Montana with the parties’ two children. Kelisa later remarried, taking the surname, “Allen.” Kelisa subsequently sought to change the surnames of the children to Allen. The petition was granted. In the meantime, Kelisa filed a motion to suspend Justin’s contact with the children. The motion was granted, and Justin’s parenting time was suspended pending reevaluation of the custody agreement. Justin subsequently filed a complaint seeking to set aside the name changes. After the new action was assigned to a judge, Justin filed a motion for substitution, and the complaint was reassigned. The new judge sua sponte consolidated Justin’s new complaint with the name-change petition and parenting plan issues and consolidated the cases in front of the original judge. After a rehearing, the judge granted the name change. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) it determined that the Allen surname was in the best interest of the children, and (2) consolidating the case.View "Tucker v. Allen" on Justia Law

Chad Anderson and Karen Ann Anderson were married in 2003 and had four children. The parties separated in 2009. Chad later filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in which he requested primary residential custody of the children. Following a trial in 2013, the district court found that it was in the children’s best interests to remain in Karen Ann’s custody and ordered Chad to pay child support in an amount based on an average of Chad’s income for the previous three years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) considering the testimony of the children’s treating counselor to determine the children’s wishes regarding custody; and (2) determining the amount for Chad’s child support payment.View "In re Marriage of Anderson" on Justia Law

In 2009, Janet Gates gave birth to a daughter, BNY. Douglas Young was named on the child’s birth certificate as the child’s father and held himself out as the child’s father. In 2012, Gates sought primary residential custody of BNY. In this Silver Bow County proceeding, the parties stipulated to participate in DNA paternity testing, which indicated a “99.99% probability” that Young was BNY’s natural father. Gates subsequently brought an action in Madison County requesting that Michael Donahue undergo a paternity test to determine if Donahue was BNY’s father. Gates then moved for an order requiring Donahue to undergo a blood DNA test and Young to undergo a sterility test. The Madison County district court granted Donahue’s motion to dismiss and denied Gates’ motion for paternity and sterility tests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Donahue’s motion to dismiss, as Gates failed to rebut the presumption of paternity in favor of Young, and judicial estoppel provided an independent and appropriate basis for the district court’s order dismissing Gates’ action.View "J.L.G. v. M.F.D." on Justia Law

Thirteen-year-old Child was removed from her parents’ care and placed into protective custody after her mother was arrested for possessing dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. Thereafter, Child was adjudicated a youth in need of care and placed in the temporary custody of the Department of Public Health and Human Services. The Department then sought permanent legal custody and the termination of the parental rights of both parents. At a summary judgment hearing, the district court ordered Child’s parental rights terminated and awarded the Department permanent legal custody of Child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the termination proceedings complied with statutory requirements for proceedings involving an Indian child. View "In re M.S." on Justia Law

Christine Deafenbaugh and Jeremy Anderson had one child together, G.J.A. After Anderson and Deafenbaugh separated, Anderson filed a petition for a parenting plan and child support. The district court referred the matter to a Standing Master, who issued a final decree establishing a final parenting plan that awarded primary custody to Deafenbaugh. The district court affirmed the Master’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree and adopted the decree as the judgment of the court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly applied a clear error standard of review to the Standing Master’s findings of fact; (2) did not err in adopting the Master’s findings of fact; and (3) did not err in determining that the parenting plan was in the best interests of G.J.A. View "In re Parenting of G.J.A." on Justia Law

Russell Rintoul and Karen Rintoul were married for thirty-eight years before filing a petition for dissolution in 2012. The district court found that the “vast majority” of the parties’ assets had either been gifts from Karen’s family or purchased with money inherited by Karen. The district court subsequently entered a decree of dissolution distributing to Karen approximately three-quarters of the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the marital estate; and (2) Karen was not entitled to attorney fees incurred in responding to this appeal as sanctions pursuant to Mont. R. App. P. 19(5). View "In re Marriage of Rintoul" on Justia Law

Mark Richards and Dianna Richards were married in 1987 and separated in 2007. Dianna filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in 2008. In 2013, the district court issued a decree of dissolution. Mark appealed the court’s decree, challenging the district court’s calculation of the net worth of the marital estate and the distribution of the parties’ marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in its valuation of the parties’ real property but erred in its calculation of the parties’ net worth; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the parties’ marital estate. Remanded for further factual findings regarding the parties’ net worth and for a recalculation of the marital estate’s total net worth. View "In re Marriage of Richards" on Justia Law

In 2003, Joe Scanlon and Lona Carter-Scanlon divorced. The district court subsequently granted Joe’s motion to modify his child support obligations, concluding that Joe had been unemployed and expected to earn $52,000 at a new job, thus reducing Joe’s monthly child support obligation from $1,381 to $814 per month. In 2008, Joe filed a second motion to modify child support. Before a hearing on the motion, Joe had a child with Joann Buer. Joann opened a case with the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to obtain child support from Joe. An administrative law judge for the CSED determined that Joe received an average actual income of $24,957. In 2012, Joe filed a motion, in his case with Lona, to take judicial notice of the CSED’s income determination. After a hearing in 2013, the district court noted the CSED’s income determination but imputed income to Joe of $52,000 per year, and determined Joe’s monthly child support obligations would remain at $814 per month. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in its manner of taking judicial notice of the prior CSED determination; and (2) the district court’s calculation of Joe’s imputed income was not clearly erroneous. View "In re Marriage of Scanlon" on Justia Law