Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

By decree of the district court, the marriage of Husband and Wife was dissolved. The decree also divided the marital estate. Husband appealed, challenging various aspects of the property division. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court (1) did not err in valuing the estate as of 2009 instead of 2002, when the parties separated; (2) did not err in its valuation of businesses owned or partly owned by Husband; (3) erred by failing to award Husband an offset credit for thousands of dollars paid to Wife between 2002 and 2009; and (4) erred by ordering that Husband pay $1.259 million equalization payment to Wife without providing a method of payment. Remanded for adoption of a reasonable payment plan for payment of the large equalization payment. View "Schwartz v. Harris" on Justia Law

Mother was an enrolled member of the Chippewa Cree Tribe. Her two minor children both qualified as Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). After the Department of Public Health and Human Services was granted temporary legal custody of the children, the county attorney filed a petition requesting termination of Mother's parental rights due to failure to comply with a court-ordered treatment plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed, alleging that the court terminated her parental rights without following the requirements of the ICWA. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new termination hearing, holding that the termination proceedings did not comply with the mandates of ICWA and its parallel state provisions. View "In re K.B." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution entered in 1995. The decree required Father to pay child support until the parties' daughter "reaches majority, graduates from high school or is otherwise emancipated." Father paid child support of $6,977 per month for over ten years, until the daughter's eighteenth birthday. In 2012, Mother filed a petition seeking additional child support payments for the period between their daughter's eighteenth birthday in November 2006 and her graduation in July 2007. The district court granted the petition, concluding that Father's child support obligation did not terminate until the daughter graduated from high school. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) since the decree of dissolution did not expressly provide the termination date for child support payments, Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-208(5) controlled and provided for a termination date upon the daughter's graduation from high school; and (2) the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply to preclude Mother's claim for back child support. View "In re Marriage of Pfeifer" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2002 when their children were approximately fifteen, twelve, and two years old. Afterward, the children resided at different times with either Mother or Father. Therefore, both Mother and Father were at times obligated to the other for child support. Since their divorce, the parties were engaged in years of litigation against each other. This appeal challenged the legal conclusions set forth in the district court's 2012 order regarding child support arrearage. The parties had failed to timely pay their child support obligations each other, which resulted in an arrearage on the part of both parents. The district court determined that Father's child support arrearage was to be offset against Mother's larger child support arrearage and that the remaining marital debt owed by Father had been discharged in bankruptcy court in 2011. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's calculations of the interest on both parties' arrearages; and (2) otherwise affirmed. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of Steab" on Justia Law

The district court granted temporary legal custody of two young children to the Department of Public Health and Human Services after Mother was arrested on criminal charges. The Department subsequently filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights. After adjudicating the children as neglected and youths in need of care, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights without requiring reunification efforts or a treatment plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that reunification efforts and another treatment plan were not in the children's best interests and terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re E.Z.C." on Justia Law

Wife filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Husband in the district court. The matter subsequently came before a standing master. After a hearing, the standing master issued her findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final decree of dissolution, which incorporated by reference a final parenting plan. After the final decree was entered, Husband appealed. However, Husband did not file any objections in the district court to the standing master's findings and conclusions within the ten-day period prescribed by Mont. Code Ann. 3-5-126(2). The Supreme Court dismissed Husband's appeal without prejudice, holding that section 3-5-126(2) and the district court's standing order required that Husband, as a prerequisite for perfecting his appeal to the Court, first file specific objections in the district court to the standing master's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final decree of dissolution. View "Beals v. Beals" on Justia Law

The State petitioned for permanent legal custody and termination of Father's parental rights to his two children after the court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied and approved treatment plans for Father prepared by the State. The district court subsequently terminated Father's parental rights to the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father's argument that the district court improperly concluded that Father's treatment plans were appropriate was not preserved for appellate review; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to terminate Father's parental rights under the ICWA where (i) a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the State made "active efforts" to provide services and programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful, and (ii) the State proved that the children would likely suffer serious emotional or physical harm if Father was to retain custody. View "In re D.S.B." on Justia Law

Defendant brought her seven-week-old son, John Doe, to a medical center for injuries. A jury later convicted Defendant of assault on a minor and aggravated assault. The district court ordered a change in parenting arrangements for John Doe as part of the criminal sentence despite pending dependency and neglect proceedings. As part of Defendant's sentence, the district court ordered Defendant to pay fees, costs, and surcharges without recording findings regarding Defendant's financial situation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant had regained custody of John Doe through the civil proceeding, her claim regarding the imposition of a condition concerning the temporary custody of John Doe was moot; however, the statement in the court's written judgment that the father should be presumed to have custody of John Doe should not have been included in the criminal sentence; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in imposing fees. View "State v. MacDonald" on Justia Law

Mother and Child were seriously injured in an automobile accident. Mother and her husband (Husband) hired Viscomi & Gersh (Viscomi) to represent Mother and Child in their claims for damages resulting from the accident. Matthew O'Neill was subsequently appointed to act as guardian ad litem (GAL) and conservator for Child. After Mother's case settled, Mother and Husband agreed with Morales Law Office (Morales) that Morales would represent Child. Morales then filed a motion to disqualify counsel. The district court denied the motion because it did not contain the consent of Viscomi and O'Neill. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when Mother and Husband consented to the appointment of a GAL and conservator to act in Child's best interests in the legal claims she had arising from the accident, they divested themselves of the right to determine who should represent Child in her personal injury claim; (2) Mont. Code Ann. 37-61-403 and Mont. Code Ann. 72-5-427 are not unconstitutional as applied in this case; and (3) section 37-61-403 does not conflict with the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct. View "In re Estate of C.K.O." on Justia Law

Child was born with numerous medical issues and hospitalized for the first three months of his life. The suspected cause of Child's medical problems was maternal drug use. The Department of Public Health and Human Services filed a petition to adjudicate Child as a youth in need of care. After an adjudicatory hearing, the district court found, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that Child was a youth in need of care. The district court then awarded custody of Child to Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in finding that Child was a youth in need of care; and (2) did not err when it granted custody of Child to Father. View "In re M.J." on Justia Law