Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

J.S., born in 1998, was an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In 2002, J.S. was adjudicated a youth in need of care, and temporary custody was granted to the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department). In 2012, the Department filed a petition for legal guardianship. Ultimately, the district court granted guardianship over J.S. to J.S.’s foster family. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State’s failure to provide notice to Father and his tribe at the outset of these proceedings did not provide a basis to overturn the district court’s ultimate guardianship order; (2) 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) did not provide a basis to overturn the district court’s award of guardianship to the foster family based on the State’s alleged failure to make “active efforts” to provide services and promote the relationship between Father and J.S.; and (3) contrary to Father’s contention, 25 U.S.C. 1912(e) did not apply to this case and did not serve to invalidate the district court’s award of guardianship. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

C.S., who turned eighteen in March 2012, received special education services from the Butte School District until June 2013. In January 2013, the Montana Office of Public Instruction directed the School District to obtain appointment of a surrogate parent for C.S., who lived with his Foster Father, for educational purposes. The district court subsequently appointed Mary Jo Mahoney as C.S.’s surrogate parent. In March 2013, C.S. filed a motion to vacate the appointment of Mahoney and to substitute Foster Father as his surrogate parent. The court denied the request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court’s refusal to vacate its appointment of Mahoney was not mooted even though C.S. no longer qualified for special education services from the School District; and (2) the district court erred when it refused to remove Mahoney and appoint Foster Father as C.S.’s surrogate parent for educational purposes. View "In re C.S." on Justia Law

Michael and Teresa Novak married in 1988. Michael petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2010, the same year that Teresa received a serious head injury. The district court entered a dissolution order dividing the marital estate and denying maintenance to Teresa. Teresa appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in its valuation and division of the marital estate; (2) erred by denying maintenance to Teresa based on the court’s incorrect evaluation of Teresa’s income and necessity; (3) erred by refusing to award attorney fees to Teresa; (4) did not err by refusing to hold Michael in contempt for failing to pay part of his military retirement to Teresa; and (5) did not err by holding Teresa in contempt for destroying property awarded to Michael, and awarding attorney fees. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of Novak" on Justia Law

In 2011, Amber Crowley filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Dennis Crowley. In 2012, the district court entered a final decree of dissolution and a final parenting plan. Dennis appealed, challenging many of the trial court’s determinations. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court’s apportionment of property and remanded for further findings of fact, holding that the district court’s findings were insufficient for the Court to determine whether all of the parties’ assets and liabilities were properly considered; (2) affirmed the court’s award of arrears for past due family support; (3) reversed the court’s maintenance order and remanded for further findings, holding that the court’s brief findings did not sufficiently address the statutory factors; (4) affirmed the court’s determination to award primary residential custody of the parties’ child to Amber; and (5) reversed the court’s order requiring Dennis to pay costs and attorney’s fees, holding that the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination that the requested fees were reasonable. View "In re Marriage of Crowley" on Justia Law

In 2012, Mother and Father divorced. The decree of dissolution provided that the couple’s two children would reside permanently with Mother. In 2013, Mother died in a fire. The children’s maternal grandmother (Grandmother) immediately took control of the children. Father subsequently filed a petition for exclusive parental control, and Grandmother requested that she be awarded a parental interest in the children. The district court entered an order granting Father exclusive parental control and authority over the children, concluding that Grandmother had not established a parent-child relationship between her and the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence. View "Hansen v. Moats" on Justia Law

After K.L. was removed from her parents’ custody, K.L. was adjudicated a youth in need of care, and the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents. After a hearing, the district court terminated the parents’ rights to K.L. Both parents appealed the order of termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) granting the Department’s motion for an extension of temporary legal custody over K.L; (2) terminating Father’s parental rights after finding that the condition rendering Father unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and (3) terminating Mother’s parental rights. View "In re K.L." on Justia Law

After the district court adjudicated Child a youth in need of care, the State filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Child was placed with Father before the termination hearing. The district court subsequently terminated Mother’s parental rights and denied Mother’s motion to dismiss the termination petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother failed to articulate a substantive due process claim that required the State’s petition to terminate be dismissed; (2) the placement of Child with Father did not require that the State’s petition to terminate be dismissed; and (3) the State’s petition to terminate was not filed prematurely. View "In re L.V-B." on Justia Law