Jones v. Jones
Decision Date | 17 December 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 80-171,80-171 |
Parties | In re the Marriage of Maureen F. JONES, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Alan R. JONES, Respondent and Respondent. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Smith Law Firm, Helena, for petitioner and appellant.
Luxan & Murfitt, Joscelyn, Honzel & Melby, Helena, for respondent and respondent.
This is an appeal by the petitioner from supplemental findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree of dissolution entered by the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Jefferson County, the Honorable James D. Freebourn presiding.
Appellant initiated this action seeking dissolution of marriage, distribution of property, apportionment of debts and determination of child custody, visitation and support. On August 13, 1979, a decree of dissolution was entered; the court, however, reserved ruling on all other issues.
The parties entered into a property settlement agreement on August 6, 1979, distributing properties, apportioning debts, granting appellant custody of the minor child, setting visitation and fixing child support. On November 16, 1979, respondent brought a motion to incorporate the agreement in the court's final decree. Appellant, however, objected to adoption of the visitation provisions.
After a hearing on the matter, the District Court entered a supplemental decree of dissolution, incorporating in toto the terms of the property settlement agreement. In support of its decree, the court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in incorporating the property settlement agreement without making specific findings of fact regarding the impact of the visitation provided for on the best interest of the child?
2. Is the finding by the District Court, that the visitation provisions of the property settlement agreement are in the best interest of the child, clearly erroneous and unsupported by the evidence?
3. Did the District Court err in refusing to permit examination of respondent's attorney?
Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P., provides that in all actions tried upon the facts without a jury the court is under an obligation to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The purpose of these findings and conclusions is to provide a foundation for the court's judgment. Marriage of Barron (1978), Mont., 580 P.2d 936, 35 St.Rep. 891.
This foundation need not consist of a multitude of evidentiary facts, but the findings of fact must set forth a recordation of the essential and determining facts upon which the court rested its conclusions of law and without which the judgment would lack support. See Marriage of Barron, supra.
Section 40-4-217, MCA, relates to visitation rights and implies a standard that these rights be consistent with the best interests of the child. To assure that this standard is complied with, it is essential that the trial court examine all pertinent and relevant factors presented at trial.
In this instance, the District Court entered a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that the visitation provision in the property settlement agreement was in the "best interest of the child." The court in so doing, however, failed to set forth a recordation of the essential and determining facts upon which it rested its conclusion.
Adequate findings and conclusions are essential for without them this Court is forced to speculate as to the reasons for the District Court's decision. Such a situation is not a healthy basis for review. Estate of Craddock (1977), 173 Mont. 8, 11, 566...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ditton
...for the [lower court's] decision. Such a situation is not a healthy basis for review.'" Jacobsen, ¶ 19 (quoting Jones v. Jones, 190 Mont. 221, 224, 620 P.2d 850, 852 (1980) and citing as illustrative of this point In re Marriage of Converse, 252 Mont. 67, 71-72, 826 P.2d 937, 939-40 (1992),......
-
Hansen v. Granite County
...is not a healthy basis for review.” Jacobsen v. Thomas, 2006 MT 212, ¶ 19, 333 Mont. 323, 142 P.3d 859 (quoting Jones v. Jones, 190 Mont. 221, 224, 620 P.2d 850, 852 (1980)). ¶ 58 Because the District Court did not provide us with a reasoned analysis on how it arrived at its award of costs,......
-
Cyr v. Cyr
...O'Meara v. O'Meara, 355 A.2d 561 (D.C.App.1976); Wurm v. Wurm, 68 Ill.App.3d 168, 24 Ill.Dec. 753, 385 N.E.2d 894 (1979); Jones v. Jones, 620 P.2d 850 (Mont.1980); DeForest v. DeForest, 228 N.W.2d 919 (N.D.1975); Gahagan v. Williams, 263 S.C. 279, 210 S.E.2d 230 (1974); Haugen v. Haugen, 82......
-
Custody and Support of B.T.S., In re
...contain findings to support the division of physical custody. This alone would be sufficient ground for remand. Jones v. Jones (Mont.1980), 620 P.2d 850, 37 St.Rep.1973. In addition, the evidence at trial supports a different division of physical custody. At trial, Dr. Jarvis testified that......