Anderson v. Deafenbaugh (In re Parenting G.J.A.)

• Decision Date: 12 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. DA 13–0665.,DA 13–0665.
• Citation: 331 P.3d 835,376 Mont. 212
• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Parties: In re The Parenting of G.J.A., A Minor Child. Jeremy J. Anderson, Petitioner and Appellant, and Christine R. Deafenbaugh, Respondent and Appellee.

376 Mont. 212

331 P.3d 835

In re The Parenting of G.J.A., A Minor Child.

Jeremy J. Anderson, Petitioner and Appellant,

and

Christine R. Deafenbaugh, Respondent and Appellee.

No. DA 13–0665.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs July 16, 2014.

Decided Aug. 12, 2014.

For Appellant: Jason T. Holden; Faure Holden, Attorneys at Law, P.C.; Great Falls, Montana.

For Appellee: Robert M. Kampfer; Attorney at Law; Great Falls, Montana.

Justice BETH BAKER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Jeremy J. Anderson appeals the Eighth Judicial District Court's entry of a final parenting plan for the parties' minor child, G.J.A. The District Court adopted the Standing Master's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree establishing a final parenting plan. We address the following issues on appeal:

¶ 2 1. Whether the District Court applied the correct standard of review.

¶ 3 2. Whether the District Court erred in adopting the Master's findings of fact.

¶ 4 3. Whether the parenting plan is in the best interests of G.J.A.

¶ 5 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 6 Christine R. Deafenbaugh met and began dating Anderson in 2005 at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. The parties had one child together, G.J.A., who was born in Minnesota in 2007. Anderson was present for the birth. In September 2007, Anderson and Deafenbaugh moved together to Fort Benton, Montana, where they stayed until August 2008.

¶ 7 In September 2008, Deafenbaugh enrolled in a five-month esthetician program with the Aveda Institute in Minnesota. G.J.A. stayed with Anderson in Montana while Deafenbaugh completed her esthetician training, but Deafenbaugh and G.J.A. visited each other frequently during this time. Anderson and Deafenbaugh separated shortly after Deafenbaugh completed the program in 2009.

¶ 8 Anderson filed a petition for a parenting plan and child support on February 13, 2009. From the date of filing until September 2013, Anderson and Deafenbaugh shared parenting time equally, eventually agreeing to an interim parenting plan with alternating five-week custody.

¶ 9 The District Court referred the matter to a Standing Master pursuant to the Eighth Judicial District's Charter Order. The Master held a bench trial on March 20–21, 2013. On June 5, 2013, the Master issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final decree establishing a final parenting plan. The plan awarded primary custody to Deafenbaugh. Anderson filed his exceptions to the Master's findings, conclusions, and decree. Following a hearing on Anderson's objections, the District Court issued an order on August 29, 2013, affirming the Master's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree and adopting the decree as the judgment of the court. Anderson appeals the District Court's order.

DISCUSSION

¶ 10 1. Whether the District Court applied the correct standard of review.

¶ 11 Because this case involves both a Standing Master and the District Court, two standards of review are relevant: the standard the District Court applies to the Master's report and the standard we apply to the District Court's decision. See Heavirland v. State, 2013 MT 313, ¶ 13, 372 Mont. 300, 311 P.3d 813; Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.1998). This Court reviews a district court's decision de novo to determine whether it applied the correct standard of review to a master's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Heavirland, ¶ 15. The first issue is whether the District Court correctly applied a clear error standard to the Standing Master's findings of fact. Anderson argues that the standard of review should be de novo.

¶ 12 “Rule 53(e)(2), M.R. Civ. P., is clear that, in non-jury actions such as this, ‘the [trial] court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.’ ” In re Marriage of Doolittle, 265 Mont. 168, 171, 875 P.2d 331, 334 (1994) (quoting M.R. Civ. P. 53(e)(2)). The plain language of the rule, which has remained unchanged in pertinent part since Doolittle, provides that a district court may modify or reject a master's findings only if the master clearly erred. Consistent with this language, the Eighth Judicial District Court's Charter Order establishing a district standing master states that “the standard of district court review of the District Standing Master's findings of fact is whether the findings of fact are clearly erroneous, giving due deference to the broad discretion of the Master to assess the relative credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.” Charter Or. Establishing Dist. Standing Master, In re the Establishment of a Dist. Standing Master for All Dep'ts of This Dist. Ct. 12 (Mont. 8th Jud. Dist. June 25, 2010).

¶ 13 Anderson points out that, under federal law, a district court's review of a magistrate's findings of fact is de novo where objections have been made. The pertinent statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636, contains language similar to that in Rule 53(e)(2) and § 3–5–126(2), MCA. It provides in addition, however, that when reviewing a magistrate's report, “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” The de novo standard for review of the proposed findings and recommendations of a federal magistrate judge found in 28 U.S.C. § 636 does not appear in Rule 53(e)(2) or § 3–5–126(2), MCA.

¶ 14 The federal Rule 53, which also pertains to masters, likewise contains significant differences from Montana's Rule 53. The federal rule provides in part that “[t]he court must decide de novo all objections to findings of fact made or recommended by a master, unless the parties, with the court's approval, stipulate that ... the findings will be reviewed for clear error [.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 53. This Court adopted changes to Montana's Rules of Civil Procedure in 2011, but for certain rules we “determined it is appropriate for Montana to update the language of an existing Rule, instead of changing the Rule to reflect the corresponding Federal Rule.” Sup. Ct. Ord. No. AF 07–0157, April 26, 2011, eff. Oct. 1, 2011. Montana's Rule 53 contains substantive differences from the federal rule and must be applied in accordance with its own language.

¶ 15 The last sentence of M.R. Civ. P. 53(e)(2) (“After hearing, the court may adopt the report, modify it, reject it in whole or in part, receive further evidence, or recommit it with instructions.”) is nearly identical to language found in § 3–5–126(2), MCA, which explains the options available to a court when reviewing the findings and conclusions of a standing master:

The court, after a hearing, may adopt the findings and conclusions or order and may modify, reject in whole or in part, receive further evidence, or recommit the findings and conclusions or order with instructions.

As noted above, however, Rule 53(e)(2) states additionally that “the court must accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.” This clarification of the applicable standard of review is not found in § 3–5–126(2), MCA.

¶ 16 Anderson argues that the clear error standard set forth in Rule 53(e)(2) should not apply to the District Court's review of the standing master, because a plenary or de novo standard is mandated by the language in § 3–5–126(2), MCA. Anderson emphasizes that the statute permits a district court to receive further evidence and to adopt, modify, reject, or recommit the findings and conclusions of a master. He argues that this language implicitly directs the District Court to apply a de novo standard of review to a master's findings. He also argues that the de novo standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636 suggests that a de novo standard is appropriate here. He claims that the District Court is “neither bound by, nor limited to, the record created before a standing master.” Without citing to any rules or cases, he suggests that the District Court's ability to receive further evidence is “the essence of plenary or de novo review.”

¶ 17 Anderson is incorrect that § 3–5–126(2), MCA, sets forth a standard of review that differs from what Rule 53(e)(2) prescribes. Section 3–5–126(2), MCA, is not inconsistent with the language of Rule 53(e)(2); both expressly allow the District Court to adopt the Master's report, modify it, reject it in whole or in part, receive further evidence, or recommit it with instructions. The statutory language at issue lists various actions that may be taken by a district court upon receiving a master's findings; these actions may be taken only if they are warranted by the record, assessed in light of the applicable standard of review set forth in Rule 53. See Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera Co. Canal & Reservoir Co., 2014 MT 167, ¶ 25, 375 Mont. 327, 328 P.3d 644.

¶ 18 Anderson suggests that Rule 53(e)(2) is limited to special masters and notes that “there are significant differences between standing masters ... and a special master,” citing to Beals v. Beals, 2013 MT 120, ¶ 9, 370 Mont. 88, 300 P.3d 1158. The issue in Beals was whether a party could appeal to this Court directly from a standing master's findings without first submitting objections to the district court. The appellant invoked § 3–5–113(1)(c), MCA, a statutory provision that relates “ specifically to special masters and not standing masters.” Beals, ¶ 9. We observed that “[t]he appointment of a standing master ... is controlled by different statutory provisions.” Beals, ¶ 10. The differences between standing and special masters are not relevant here, however, because Rule 53(e) applies to both. Rule 53(a)(1)(A-C) defines three types of master: standing masters, special masters, and water masters. Rule 53(b) limits the referrals that may be made to special masters and allows referrals to standing and water masters as prescribed by statute or court rule. The remaining subsections of the rule, Rule 53(c-e), do not apply to one type of master to the exclusion...