Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Phil and Valerie married in 2003 and commenced dissolution proceedings in 2005. After five years of litigation, the district court held bifurcated bench trials to address three separate aspects of the dissolution: the parenting plan, child support obligations, and division of the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining and distributing the marital estate; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the couple's children would reside primarily with Valerie under the final parenting plan; and (3) the district court did not err in calculating Phil's child support payments. View "In re Marriage of Tummarello" on Justia Law

Kevin and June Funk were married in 1990. In 1996, Kevin inherited several acres of lakefront and non-lakefront property, several vehicles, and an undisclosed amount of cash. June filed for dissolution in 2009. In distributing the marital assets upon dissolution, the district court included Kevin's inherited real property in the marital assets and awarded a portion to June. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's award of one of the vehicles to June and its valuation of Kevin's lakefront property; and (2) remanded for the district court to assess the factors set forth in Mont. Code Ann. 202(1) in determining the legal basis for an award to June of a portion of the value of the lakefront property. View "In re Marriage of Funk" on Justia Law

Husband appealed from the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution entered by the district court, which dissolved the marriage of Husband and Wife, determined Husband's child support obligation, and adopted a parenting plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) imputed $90,000 in annual disposable income to Husband for purposes of calculating his child support obligation, and (2) did not follow the recommendation of the parenting evaluator that Husband be allowed "make up" visitation days for those days he missed visitation while working out of town. View "In re Marriage of Everett" on Justia Law