Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The district court entered a decree in 2011 dissolving the marriage of Petitioner Aylynn King (Aly) and Joseph King (Joe) and establishing a parenting plan with respect to their two-and-a-half-year-old child, B.K. Aly challenged: (1) the District Court’s denial of her request to change the child’s surname to Matté, the surname that was restored to Aly after the dissolution, and (2) the parenting plan, which provides that B.K. will reside with Joe two days a week during most of the year, and five to seven days a week for about six weeks each summer. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no basis upon which to reverse the district court's decisions in this case, and affirmed the court's decisions. View "Marriage of King" on Justia Law

In 1976 Cecilia Kincaid Bates, grantor, and co-trustees George Kincaid and Richard Peterson entered into a trust agreement establishing the Cecilia Kincaid Gift Trust for George. George was Cecilia's son and died in 2009. In 2010 the co-trustees filed a final account, petition for settlement, distribution, and termination of the trust. When distributing the proceeds of the trust, the district court determined that Jennifer, George's child who was born and given up for adoption after the trust was established, should be included in the trust distribution. The trustees appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the plain language of the trust, Jennifer was not a descendant of George because she was adopted and was therefore regarded as the lawful blood descendant of the adopting parent or parents. Remanded. View "In re Kincaid Gift Trust" on Justia Law

Appellee Dawn Lewton filed a petition for separation in the district court from Appellant John Lewton. The petition for separation was converted into a petition for dissolution. Following a trial, the district court distributed the marital property, awarded Dawn attorney fees, and awarded Dawn back child support owed by John. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) by failing to make a finding of the net worth of the marital estate and when apportioning the marital estate; (2) by awarding attorney fees to Dawn; (3) by awarding maintenance to Dawn; and (4) in awarding back support to Dawn. View "In re Marriage of Lewton" on Justia Law

The child abuse and neglect proceedings (DN cases) at issue here commenced with the filing of a petition for emergency protective services, adjudication as youth in need of care and temporary legal custody. Parent was served with a show cause order on February 5, 2012. On February 7, the office of public defender filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Parent. The court continued the show cause hearing until February 22. On February 21, Parent filed a motion to substitute judge. The district court concluded that Parent's initial appearance under Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-804(1)(b) was February 7, the date of appearance of counsel, and therefore the motion for substitution was untimely and must be denied. Parent subsequently sought supervisory control. The Supreme Court granted Parent's petition, holding that the district court erred in determining that it was the date of appearance of counsel that started the clock running for purposes of a motion for substitution of judge in a DN proceeding, as it is the date upon which a parent first appears in court to answer the allegations of a DN petition that constitutes her initial appearance for purposes of the substitution statute. Remanded. View "A.C. v. Judicial Dist. Court " on Justia Law

After Michael Johnson and Laura Wendlandt divorced, the couple's child, P.J., lived with Laura. Montana Child Protective Services later began investigating allegations that Michael sexually abused P.J. Laura filed an ex parte motion in the district court, requesting temporary emergency jurisdiction, assumption of continuing jurisdiction, and an order of protection. The district court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for P.J. and awarded full custody to Laura until the GAL issued her report and recommendations. The district court eventually issued an order adopting the GAL's recommendations and ordered that full custody of P.J. would remain with Laura. No hearing was held. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in adopting and implementing the recommendations of the GAL without first holding a hearing. View "Wendlandt v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Prior to the marriage of Todd Feeley and Anne Nang Loi, Anne inherited or was gifted money from the sale of her family's business. Anne filed for dissoluion of the parties' marriage in 2009. At trial, Anne alleged that approximately $180,000 of the parties' $198,000 down payment on the marital home came from her inherited funds. The district court found that there was no evidence other than the testimony of Anne and her mother to establish that $180,000 of the inherited money had been applied to the down payment. Instead, the court found that Anne was entitled to an additional $79,982 in equity from the marital home because this amount could be traced to the down payment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Anne failed to show the district court's equitable distribution of the marital estate lacked credible support in the evidence or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion. View "Loi v. Feeley" on Justia Law

The State removed two minor children from Mother's care and began abuse and neglect proceedings against Mother. The children were later adjudicated to be youths in need of care. After a dispositional hearing, the district court awarded Father sole custody of the children and dismissed the State's case. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the court did not err when it dismissed the State's abuse and neglect proceeding and placed the children with Father because the court followed statutory procedure in ordering placement of the children with Father, and Mother had a remedy by initiating an action for a parenting plan. View "In re S.S. " on Justia Law

Husband and Wife filed for divorce. During the dissolution proceeding, a guardian ad litem (GAL), who was appointed for the parties' two daughters, recommended co-parenting with equal visitation by both parents. At the final hearing, the parties stipulated to the district court that they had reached agreement on a final parenting plan. They also agreed that no child support or maintenance would be paid to either party. The district court took judicial notice of the GAL's recommendations. Subsequently, and prior to dissolution, the GAL revised her recommendations and recommended that Husband be the children's primary residential parent with Wife having visitation rights. The court adopted the GAL's custody recommendation and also ordered Wife to pay Husband child support. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the GAL's revised plan constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in relying upon the hearsay evidence in order to determine the matter of child custody. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of Puccinelli" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced in 2003. A final parenting plan was incorporated into their divorce decree allocating parenting time in regard to Child. In 2011, Wife filed a motion to amend the parenting plan. The district court granted the motion, which resulted in allowing Child to determine future residential decisions annually. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the order amending the parenting plan and reinstated the original parenting plan, holding that the district court's findings were insufficient to establish the statutory standard for amendment of the parenting plan; and (2) reversed the district court's holding that Child would determine his own residential arrangements, concluding that the court erred in delegating to Child the power to modify the parenting plan in the future, as the determination of whether a parenting plan is appropriate is a legal conclusion that can only be made by a court. View "In re Marriage of Whyte " on Justia Law

Appellant Wife filed for dissolution of her marriage to Husband. The district court found the marriage to be irretrievably broken, divided property between the parties, ordered Husband to pay child support and Wife's attorney fees, and denied Wife's request for maintenance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the district court (1) was not prevented from properly valuing the properties of the estate; (2) did not err in its division of the marital estate; (3) did not err in calculating the amount of Husband's premarital contribution credit on certain properties; (4) did not err by failing to award maintenance to Wife; and (5) did not err in requiring Husband to pay Wife's attorney fees and in the calculation of those fees. View "In re Marriage of Caras" on Justia Law