Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Montana State Categories







In re Marriage of Rhonda Elaine Baker Damschen and Donald David Damschen

Case No. DA 10-0559 (MT S.Ct., Nov. 29, 2011)

Rhonda Damschen appeals various orders of the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, reducing the amount of child support she is to receive, and ordering her to repay her ex-husband, Donald Damschen, the amount of child support he overpaid along with his attorney’s fees. We affirm and remand for a determination and assessment of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

Rhonda raised three issues on appeal which we have consolidated into the following two issues:

1. Whether the District Court erred in granting Donald’s Motion to Modify Child Support.

2. Whether the District Court erred: (a) in awarding attorney’s fees to Donald; and (b) in the amount of attorney’s fees it awarded to Donald.

Factual and Procedural Background



Rhonda and Donald married in June 1989 in Missoula County. Both Rhonda and Donald are physicians. At the time the parties divorced in October 2000, Donald was employed as a general surgeon at Clark Fork Valley Hospital in Plains, while Rhonda remained at home to care for and home-school their three children, ages 6, 4 and 1 years old. Donald has since gone into private practice in Plains as a general surgeon, and Rhonda is currently employed part-time as a physician at the Montana State Hospital in Warm Springs.
 

 

Judge(s): James C. Nelson
Jurisdiction: Montana Supreme Court
Supreme Court Judge(s)
Beth Baker
Patricia Cotter
Mike McGrath
James Nelson
Michael Wheat

 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Ed McLean

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Richard Volinkaty Law Office

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Jo Antonioli Antonioli and Wade PC

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
filed: warm springs. circumstances of the children have changed . . . . employed as a general surgeon at clark fork valley hospital in plains, while rhonda continuing changes in circumstances in this case meet the statutory requirements of damschen's parenting, requiring lengthy amounts of time and attention their mother and since 2003 have lived with each parent one-half of the 23 rhonda contends on appeal that the district court erred when it failed to hold an counsel of record: completely ignores the fact that in the seven years between the parties' divorce and the 2011 mt 297 voluntarily relinquished his claim for prejudgment interest, that does not negate the fact a party in support of positions taken on appeal, we, as a general rule, will not consider appeal from: district court of the fourth judicial district, concerning the interpretation or enforcement of the agreement. rhonda argues that such until such time as donald adds their oldest child to his automobile insurance policy, then in addition, 40-4-201(6), mca, provides in pertinent part: court did not err in granting donald's motion to modify child support. change of circumstances so as to make the existing terms unconscionable. donald noted richard a. volinkaty, attorney at law, missoula, montana the agreement was further amended by the district court in january 2005, to provide substantial injustice. in re chamberlin, 2011 mt 253, 10, 362 mont. 226, ___ p.3d prevailing party in subsequent proceedings. consequently, we hold that the district discretionary. as a result, we review those determinations for abuse of outlined in the statute. jarussi, 10. and donald on a weekly basis. grandparents live next door to his mother, and that he would like to spend more time with support. with preparation and finalization of the final order and judgment on the motions on that the district court erred by including fees for pleadings not related to the motions for imputed the same income for rhonda as in the second worksheet, but she added the cost 45 in addition, the matters on which, according to rhonda, donald did not prevail, honorable ed mclean, presiding judge 14 steffens issued her report and recommendations regarding child support on mt 224, 12, 311 mont. 375, 56 p.3d 317). we review a district court's conclusions of overpaid from september 28, 2007, the date his motion to modify child support was 17 in its october 23, 2009 findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, the 294, 11, 334 mont. 388, 147 p.3d 227 (citing in re marriage of martinich-buhl, 2002 unless it finds, after considering the economic circumstances of the parties 40-4-208, mca. donald david damschen, well. plath, 36 (citing morning star enterprises, 247 mont. at 113, 805 p.2d at 558). the first worksheet, steffens used rhonda's actual income to calculate child support and numerous other matters. hence, evidence of the changed circumstances was already by donald, but the court itself had ordered several of the changes, including the change district court.); in re marriage of simms, 264 mont. 317, 325, 871 p.2d 899, 904 (1994) guidelines: guidelines of the uniform child support guidelines." based on the agreement, primary residential parent" and that donald would have "frequent and liberal contact" rhonda filed a motion to amend parenting plan claiming that the parties' 15-year-old ] a district court's determinations regarding substantial october 18, 2000. the decree included a "marital dissolution settlement agreement and 40-4-110, mca. (a) award of attorney's fees amount of attorney's fees it awarded to donald. court did not abuse its discretion in awarding donald his attorney's fees in this action. 15 notwithstanding the results of the child support calculations, steffens age of eighteen (18); she also stated that she has neither encouraged nor discouraged d.j.d.'s request. of including the parties' oldest child on donald's automobile insurance policy. this the parties' agreement specifically provides for an award of attorney's fees to the with the children. (a district court is not bound by the parties' determinations on matters of support, mont. 175, 53 p.3d 1266). 11 since the original child support provision was ordered, constitute the kinds a district court's award of attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion. kruer, 16 (citing custody and in payment of the children's expenses are the types of changes which "tend express findings that substantial and continuous changes in circumstances existed since ("parties cannot make binding agreements, oral or written, as to support, custody or he overpaid along with his attorney's fees. we affirm and remand for a determination 12 including their home-schooling expenses. now, however, the children are enrolled in law to determine whether the court's conclusions are correct. midence, 11. discretion. 25 not only was the district court familiar with the changes in circumstances cited in addition, donald stated that he pays for nearly all of the children's extracurricular 3 order of protection. the district court specifically addressed this matter and deducted from the court. there have been numerous lengthy hearings on parenting not determine child support by contract, it should have determined that any award of attorney fees and final judgment. in its order, the court concluded that attorney's fees month. later, when donald went into private practice, he received a lower salary and his was not working at the time they divorced, so her income was not considered in should any action be commenced to enforce, modify, or interpret any and judgment; preparation of the affidavit of attorney's fees ordered by the district the property to be affected; (5) the professional skill and experience called mt 149, 16, 332 mont. 415, 138 p.3d 815. the moving party. in re marriage of o'moore, 2002 mt 31, 8, 308 mont. 258, 42 p.3d (2)(b)(i), mca,[1 child support formula set forth in that agreement must be enforced and may not be declined to add the term "unconscionable" in its final order actually supports donald's 6 the parties' marriage was dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage on public school and reside half of the time with donald and half of the time with rhonda. of demonstrating both substantial and continuing change, and unconscionable terms, is on child support and that the district court ordered that he be reimbursed for any and continuing changed circumstances and unconscionability are mager, 241 mont. 78, 80-81, 785 p.2d 198, 200 (1990) (separation or settlement 4 attorney's fees incurred in determining child support must also be done "outside the rhonda elaine baker damschen, court; and responses to rhonda's objections to an award of attorney's fees. denial of donald's request to rule on the unconscionability of child support. as to the therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and pages of the record relied on . . . ." (b) in the amount of attorney's fees it awarded to donald. original award of child support is without merit. in its march 7, 2008 order granting november 30 2011 since the original child support order was entered, the and [donald] has re-married. the three children are, of course, seven years for; (6) the attorneys' character and standing in their profession; and (7) the rhonda contends that any award of attorney's fees should have been determined under in the amount of $30,166.50 were reasonably expended by donald in defeating rhonda's agreement is a valid contract, the district court erred in failing to enforce the child time. [donald] pays for a significant number of the children's da 10-0559 remained at home to care for and home-school their three children, ages 6, 4 and 1 years support her argument that the agreement precludes modification of child support. support. percent (14%) of his gross salary, including bonuses, until [c] reaches the light of the evidence and the findings based thereon that the district court's findings are the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons extra-curricular activities. [rhonda] has a new partner in her household court also ordered that rhonda repay donald the $50,688 in child support that donald motion or on request of the court, that the separation agreement is this case are the kind anticipated by 40-4-208, mca, the court clearly considered the visitation of children."); in re marriage of widhalm, 279 mont. 97, 101, 926 p.2d 748, district court denied rhonda's motion to amend the parties' parenting plan, but granted 5 rhonda and donald married in june 1989 in missoula county. both rhonda and mother's home in plains while she was away at work since he already had a history of with the children, the decree may expressly preclude or limit modification determine whether those findings are clearly erroneous. midence v. hampton, 2006 mt [w]here a modification of child support is made pursuant to 40-4-208 modification of child support and for amendment of the parenting plan, as well as fees for 34 in winters, the husband agreed to pay $500 per month to the wife for ten years, 31 section 40-4-201(2), mca, provides in pertinent part: 27 in addition, we have recognized in previous cases that changes in residential support formula set forth in that agreement. issue 2. 5 the original award of child support; and failed to rule that the existing child support 13 in an affidavit accompanying the motion, d.j.d. asserted that he would be "more 28 furthermore, while rhonda is correct that the district court did not expressly rule (quoting hart v. hart, 2011 mt 102, 28, 360 mont. 308, 258 p.3d 389). in this case, 48 based on our review of the record, we conclude that rhonda has not established jo antonioli, antonioli and wade, p.c., missoula, montana in the court record. in fact, in a may 9, 2006 order, the judge who retained jurisdiction 18 the prevailing party in subsequent proceedings. the agreement states: cini, 27. that he prevailed on his motion. as to the third matter, the fact that the district court support and awarding donald his attorney's fees, and we remand for a determination and resulting in a child support payment from donald to rhonda of $488 per month. in the calculations, the parties "shall proceed to a master-supervised settlement conference." motion and set a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the attorney's fees. the as long as the three children divide their time equally between their parents. steffens 17 the language of 40-4-208, mca, referring to unconscionable terms, and then stated that twenty-six percent (26%) of his gross salary, including bonuses, until [a] 750 (1996) ("separation or settlement agreements providing for support, custody or to render the prior child support order unconscionable." in re marriage of mills, 2006 primarily with rhonda and rhonda was responsible for the majority of their expenses, 16 rhonda filed her objections to steffens' report contending that steffens' subjective (1) the amount and character of the services rendered; (2) the labor, time become employed on a part-time basis and travels with her work. because the parties' agreement specifically provides for an award of attorney's fees to filed, through october 9, 2009, the date of the court's order granting donald's motion. attorney's fees were to be awarded to the prevailing party in the event of litigation 14 20 rhonda appeals the district court's orders modifying donald's child support justice james c. nelson delivered the opinion of the court. contract." thus, instead of relying on the parties' agreement to award attorney's fees, donald agrees to pay child support to rhonda as follows: to 40-4-208(2)(b)(i), mca, alleging that there had been a substantial and continuing 147). 19 that the district court abused its discretion in determining the amount and reasonableness rhonda is currently employed part-time as a physician at the montana state hospital in resulted in a child support payment from donald to rhonda of $44 per month. submitted on briefs: september 28, 2011 judicial district, missoula county, reducing the amount of child support she is to receive, desires to assert his right to live [where] he wants subject to routine parental restrictions." 16 v. brandon, 271 mont. 149, 894 p.2d 951 (1995) (the terms of a separation agreement reasonable attorney's fee to the successful party. comfortable and less anxious" at his mother's. d.j.d. also pointed out that his maternal are clear." in re marriage of cini, 2011 mt 295, 27, ___ mont. ___, ___ p.3d ___ entitled to attorney's fees is a question of law. kruer v. three creeks ranch of wyoming, reasonableness of attorney's fees, the district court entered its order setting amount of overpayment of child support from the date he filed his motion. while donald hearing on donald's motion to modify child support is not well taken. rhonda section 40-4-208(2)(b)(i), mca, specifically provides that whenever a decree contains amount of attorney's fees awarded as the court included fees for pleadings not related to 7 the agreement provided the following regarding child support: support in later applications." winters, 188 mont. at 47, 610 p.2d at 1168 (citing butler after [b] reaches the age of eighteen (18), [donald] will pay fourteen longer bearing the cost of the home schooling. the boys are currently showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms donald are physicians. at the time the parties divorced in october 2000, donald was 9 on september 28, 2007, donald filed a motion to modify child support pursuant 32 we have reiterated at every opportunity that the court's statutory authority to donald pay rhonda $488 per month retroactive to september 28, 2007. agreement. she maintains that when the district court concluded that the parties could modify or interpret any provision contained herein, the court, as a cost of suit, shall award 38 donald contends that the district court properly awarded attorney's fees to him clerk unconscionable." /s/ michael e wheat decided: november 29, 2011 __________________________________________ modify child support were sufficient to constitute the kinds of substantial and old. donald has since gone into private practice in plains as a general surgeon, and donald based on the parties' agreement, and that by doing so, the court misapplied interpretations in great part influenced by acceptance of donald's allegations about enrolled in public school. the children no longer reside primarily with 2008, stating that the changes alleged by donald were the kind of changes anticipated by without merit. she contends that because the parties' agreement is a valid contract, the analysis was heavily tilted toward donald and against rhonda. rhonda further donald further contends that it is undisputed that he was the prevailing party on his provisions relating to maintenance or support, modification may only be made "upon a in the supreme court of the state of montana not clearly erroneous, and that, in making its judgment, the court adhered to the standards which included support for the children and the wife, as well as a property settlement noted, however, that if the court wished to order a specific amount of support, she would modified without the mutual consent of the parties. winters, 188 mont. at 46, 610 p.2d at does not appeal the court's order denying her motion to amend parenting plan. she has had the financial benefit of the over-payment of child support over clearly, no further evidentiary hearing was necessary. 8 the parties entered into a permanent settlement agreement on august 14, 2003, june 30, 2009. attached to her report were three separate child support worksheets. in [t]hese changes, taken together with the length of time which has elapsed issues. however, rhonda's reliance on winters is misplaced. activities including all expenses for their participation in sports, boy scouts and camp. 767 (citing in re marriage of callahan, 233 mont. 465, 469, 762 p.2d 205, 208 (1988); 1 custody and visitation, whether it is by written agreement or an oral, in-court stipulation. evidentiary hearing to determine whether the allegations contained in donald's motion to 24 rhonda's argument that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary 2008 mt 315, 16, 346 mont. 66, 194 p.3d 634 (citing boe v. court adm'r for the mon. in re marriage of barnard, 264 mont. 103, 106, 870 p.2d 91, 93 (1994)). in his motion that when the parties entered into the agreement, the children resided issue 1. redundant hearings related to rhonda damschen's interference with donald since the entry of the decree of dissolution on october 18, 2000, with the children are no longer being home-schooled and [rhonda] is no we concur: 26 likewise, rhonda's argument that the district court failed to make express 18 thereafter, donald moved the court for an award of attorney's fees since he was visitation of children are not binding upon the district court."). 15 the facts in this case. state hospital in warm springs, it was too risky to allow d.j.d. to live unattended at his /s/ mike mcgrath of substantial and continuing changes in circumstances anticipated by payment from donald to rhonda of $83 per month. in the third worksheet, steffens because donald was the prevailing party on these matters, rhonda must pay donald's for appellant: 41 rhonda cites no authority for her position, thus we refuse to consider her including band instruments, field trips and attendance at school functions. provision in the parties' agreement: "should any action be commenced to enforce, following two issues: motion to modify child support and in his opposition to rhonda's motion to modify the for the same reason, we hold that donald is also entitled to his attorney's fees on appeal. and any other relevant evidence produced by the parties, on their own information, legal arguments, and opinions of both expert and lay witnesses in reaching 3 1. whether the district court erred in granting donald's motion to modify child first matter, the district court did not award donald any attorney's fees related to the missing school. as to donald's motion to modify child support, the court ordered that after [a] reaches the age of eighteen (18), [donald] will pay twenty not appear in a district court's findings as long as this court can determine whether, in recommend the $83 per month payment from donald to rhonda based on worksheet two allowed her to purchase real property. designated for donald, a surgeon. the parties proceeded to a master-supervised however, these guidelines are not exclusive; the trial court may consider other factors as 40-4-208, mca. thus, the court referred the matter to ann steffins, with guidelines any fees related to the order of protection from the award of attorney's fees. with regard morning star enterprises v. r.h. grover, 247 mont. 105, 114, 805 p.2d 553, 558 36 whether the district court erred: (a) in awarding attorney's fees to donald; and contentions, clearly related to these motions. the pleadings rhonda complains of dealt plath, 36 (citing swenson v. janke, 274 mont. 354, 361, 908 p.2d 678, 682-83 (1995)). to the second matter, it is uncontested that donald prevailed on his motion to modify furthermore, and assessment of costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal. basis that the district court modified the child support obligation set forth in the [i]n a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation, the 1 rhonda damschen appeals various orders of the district court for the fourth calculating child support. however, since that time, rhonda has become employed 7 el dorado heights homeown. ass'n v. dewitt, 2008 mt 199, 15, 344 mont. 77, 186 circumstances cannot be contracted away by the parties. see e.g. in re marriage of monthly obligation was reduced to $2,600 per month. employment of conscientious judgment or so exceeds the bounds of reason as to work a 35 based on the foregoing, we conclude that the district court's findings of fact are donald's child support obligation in 2000 when the parties divorced was $3,358 per parenting plan. recommended that neither donald nor rhonda pay any child support to the other parent (b) amount of attorney's fees awarded and ordering her to repay her ex-husband, donald damschen, the amount of child support 2 the motions for modification of child support and for amendment of the parenting plan as the child support issues. which the services were rendered; (4) the amount of money or the value of contended that steffens based her calculations and recommendations upon subjective protection; (2) a request for interest on any judgment amount awarded; and (3) the court's jud. branch, 2007 mt 7, 5, 335 mont. 228, 150 p.3d 927; in re petition of deadman's amending the original agreement and changing residential custody of the children from well as for matters on which donald did not prevail. consulting, for a child support calculation, and ordered that upon receipt of steffens' 4 2. whether the district court erred: (a) in awarding attorney's fees to donald; and 39 a court's determination as to which party is the prevailing party and thereby providing for the support, custody, and visitation of children are not binding upon the age of eighteen (18). assessment of costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal. joint petitioner and appellant, 8 settlement conference as ordered by the district court, but did not reach a settlement of of terms set forth in the decree if provided for in the separation agreement. rhonda has the income ability, resources, and assets necessary to meet her (1991)). in making such a determination, the following factors should be considered as enforceable agreements and the district court is bound by the agreement's terms if they obligation as well as the court's orders awarding donald his attorney's fees. rhonda in re the marriage of parenting plan" (the agreement) dated august 31, 2000. the agreement provided that in and for the county of missoula, cause no. dr-00-544 agreement yet gave effect to another portion of the same agreement which provided that case. plath v. schonrock, 2003 mt 21, 36, 314 mont. 101, 64 p.3d 984 (citing coincide with when his younger brothers are at his father's. 19 on february 2, 2011, after holding two evidentiary hearings on the amount and 10 obligation was unconscionable. rhonda also contends that because the parties' fees. at those hearings, donald offered testimony--including expert testimony--and unconscionable. [emphasis added.] unsupported issues or arguments. leichtfuss v. dabney, 2005 mt 271, 37 n.8, 329 rhonda having primary residential custody to both parents sharing residential custody. 30 we also find rhonda's argument regarding the nature of the parties' agreement employment, steffens imputed a larger income to rhonda resulting in a child support factual and procedural background 42 "attorney fees provisions contained in marital settlement agreements are donald's motion to modify child support. regarding rhonda's motion, the court 37 rhonda contends that the district court erred when it awarded attorney's fees to previous argument that the court's march 7, 2008 order was sufficient on its face. 40-4-208, mca, is not an abuse of discretion. accordingly, we hold that the district older and two have become teenagers while one is a pre-teen. [rhonda] has 12 on june 11, 2009, prior to steffens issuing her report in the child support matter, percent (20%) of his gross salary, including bonuses until [b] reaches the a 2 year period in the aggregate amount of more than $50,000 which reaches the age of eighteen (18); modified. however, this argument is contrary to montana law. 44 the pleadings that rhonda claims were not related to the motions for modification to donald, she earns a substantial income. consequently, donald maintained that ___ (quoting in re marriage of kessler, 2011 mt 54, 15, 359 mont. 419, 251 p.3d 22 in child support modification cases, we review a district court's findings of fact to argument. m. r. app. p. 12(1)(f) requires that the argument section of a brief "contain 11 after briefing by both parties, the district court entered an order on march 7, 29 moreover, we have held that the exact wording of 40-4-208(2)(b), mca, need mont. 129, 122 p.3d 1220 (citing in re marriage of mcmahon, 2002 mt 198, 6, 311 considerably since the parties entered into the agreement. donald noted that rhonda obligation to pay the fees awarded here, particularly in light of the fact that attorney's fees. supported by substantial evidence and its determination that the substantial and results secured by the services of the attorneys. provision created a contractual obligation on the part of the husband and could not be for appellee: in re marriage of jarussi, 1998 mt 272, 7, 291 mont. 371, 968 p.2d 720. the burden (b) in the amount of attorney's fees it awarded to donald. donald also stated that he pays for all of the costs associated with their school activities argument is without merit. for enrolling the children in public school, and for alternating custody between rhonda basin users, 2002 mt 15, 9, 308 mont. 168, 40 p.3d 387). we review a district court's 9 part-time as a physician at the montana state hospital in warm springs where, according rhonda, a family physician, in an amount that was $8,000 greater than the income [emphasis added.] continuous changes in circumstances anticipated by 40-4-208, mca; failed to make the parties would share the joint parenting of the children, but that rhonda would be "the motion to amend parenting plan and in prosecuting and prevailing on his motion to 6 40 in the instant case, rhonda objects to the award of attorney's fees to donald on the payment for the marital home awarded to the wife. we held in winters that this payment 49 we affirm the district court's orders granting donald's motion to modify child the court notes that this case now takes up 2 complete court files [e]xcept for terms concerning the support, parenting, or parental contact 1167-68. notwithstanding, we also stated in winters that "[w]hat we hold here has no of the fees awarded. accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in the joint petitioner and appellee. matters on which donald did not prevail. we conclude, however, that rhonda's a reasonable attorney's fee to the successful party." the district court granted donald's the court further ordered that rhonda repay this amount at the rate of $500 per month. 43 rhonda also objects to the amount of attorney's fees awarded to donald claiming thus, contrary to rhonda's contentions, by stating that the changes in circumstances in 46 the reasonableness of attorney's fees must be ascertained under the facts of each them. d.j.d. proposed that he visit his father once a month for a four-day weekend set to court.); in re marriage of kovash, 270 mont. 517, 522, 893 p.2d 860, 863 (1995) provision contained herein, the court, as a cost of suit, shall award a donald's motion to modify child support, the court stated: because this court is under no obligation to locate authorities or formulate arguments for rhonda's career opportunities. rhonda also complained that steffens imputed income to 21 whether the district court erred in granting donald's motion to modify child /s/ patricia cotter from home-schooling to public schooling and the alternating weekly residential schedule. documentary evidence on these factors. the district court considered all of the its decision. in addition, the court found the following: because the foundational elements upon which the original child support calculation was the payment should be reduced to $44 per month based on worksheet three. 10 donald contended in his motion that rhonda's financial situation has changed based no longer existed, his child support obligation must be modified. parenting, and parental contact with children, are binding upon the court yet he received attorney's fees, included: (1) a justice of the peace court order of the prevailing party on both motions. in doing so, donald relied on the following 2 rhonda raised three issues on appeal which we have consolidated into the that the existing child support obligation was "unconscionable," the court directly quoted agreements providing for support, custody or visitation of children are not binding upon a instead, on those issues, the court must apply the appropriate statutory criteria.); brandon decisions regarding questions of law for correctness. kruer, 16. in addition, we review address vacation plans, holiday visitation schedules, home-schooling, public schooling, terms of the separation agreement, except those providing for the support, and contract law and abused its discretion. rhonda also contends that the court erred in the /s/ beth baker 13 which donald prevailed; preparation and participation in the hearing on the final order 47 in the case sub judice, the district court held two hearings regarding attorney's bearing on the power of the court to modify agreements of the parties regarding child treatment by the district court is "inconsistent" and, in effect, eviscerates the entire throughout these proceedings summed up the litigation as follows: the parties also stipulated in the agreement that they recognized that it was "outside the and trouble involved; (3) the character and importance of the litigation in p.3d 1249). a district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily without determine appropriate child support and to modify child support under changed son, d.j.d., wanted to live with her full time. rhonda stated in her motion that "d.j.d. determined that because rhonda spends 11 days each month working at the montana filing of donald's motion, there were any number of hearings in the district court to findings that substantial and continuous changes in circumstances existed since the /s/ james c. nelson 33 rhonda relies on winters v. winters, 188 mont. 43, 610 p.2d 1165 (1980), to second worksheet, noting that there was no reason rhonda could not maintain full-time of child support and for amendment of the parenting plan were, contrary to rhonda's parties' previous agreement regarding child support unconscionable. modify child support. thus, the court ordered that, based on the parties' agreement, v. brownlee, 152 mont. 453, 451 p.2d 836 (1969)). thus, winters may not be applied to


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise