In re Marriage of Crilly, DA 07-0426.

• Docket Nº: No. DA 07-0426.
• Citation: 351 Mont. 71, 2009 MT 187, 209 P.3d 249
• Case Date: May 27, 2009
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

209 P.3d 249 2009 MT 187 351 Mont. 71 In re the MARRIAGE OF Irene CRILLY, Petitioner and Appellant, and
Donald Crilly, Respondent and Appellee. No. DA 07-0426. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs October 16, 2008. Decided May 27, 2009.

For Appellant: Jill Deann LaRance, LaRance & Syth, Billings, Montana.

For Appellee: Timothy J. Whalen, Whalen & Whalen, Laurel, Montana.

[209 P.3d 250]

Justice JOHN WARNER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Donald Crilly (Donald) filed a petition to modify the maintenance provision of the decree dissolving the marriage between him and Irene Crilly (Irene). The District Court granted Donald's petition, eliminating maintenance. Irene appeals. We affirm.

¶ 2 Approximately five months after this Court decided In re Marriage of Crilly, 2005 MT 311, 329 Mont. 479, 124 P.3d 1151 (Crilly I), Donald filed his petition to eliminate maintenance, asserting that the financial circumstances of the parties had changed and that it would be unconscionable to require him to continue paying $1,000 a month to Irene as maintenance.

¶ 3 In the decree distributing the parties' marital estate, the District Court ordered that real property on King Avenue (tract 2 C/S 976) in Billings be sold and the proceeds used to pay the debts of the marriage as well as any capital gains taxes.

¶ 4 The parties' remaining real property, located on Danford Road, was divided between the parties. Irene received 30 acres consisting of three lots, one of which included the family home. Donald received two lots, totaling 25 acres. The District Court noted at the time that "it is equitable for the parties to receive a nearly equal distribution of the marital estate, with Irene receiving maintenance."

¶ 5 Donald's petition to modify maintenance alleged that he was unable to pay maintenance, that the marital debt was paid from the proceeds of the King Avenue property and that Irene was able to meet her expenses without maintenance. Irene responded and filed a discovery request seeking financial information from Donald. Donald did not fully comply with this request, which became a contentious issue. Irene filed a motion to compel which was partially granted. Irene has not appealed from this order regarding the motion to compel.

¶ 6 A hearing was held at which both parties testified concerning their financial status. Donald said that he could pay maintenance only by dissipating the assets that were distributed to him in the dissolution proceeding. Donald also testified he had received $350,000 from the sale of the Danford Road property.

¶ 7 Irene testified she was currently in the process of selling her part of the Danford Road property and she expected to receive $556,000 from that sale.

¶ 8 The District Court found that each party had received $35,000 from the sale of the King Avenue property. After additional briefing regarding sale of the parties' property, the District Court found that there had been a change in circumstances so substantial and continuing that the previous maintenance...