Marriage of Barron, In re
| Decision Date | 28 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 13950,13950 |
| Citation | 580 P.2d 936,177 Mont. 161 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF J. Vaughan BARRON, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Kalmia K. Barron, Respondent and Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Howard F. Strause (argued), Great Falls, for petitioner and appellant.
C. W. Leaphart, Jr. (argued), Helena, for respondent and respondent.
This is an appeal from a portion of a decree of divorce entered in District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Hon. Peter Meloy presiding without a jury.
Petitioner brought this action for a dissolution of his marriage; an equitable distribution of the property of the parties; and, for determination of the amount of child support payments to be paid to respondent. The District Court dissolved the marriage; made a division of their property; set the amount of child support and alimony payments; and, required the petitioner to pay respondent's attorney fees. From the judgment, as it relates to child support and alimony payments and the requirement that petitioner pay respondent's attorney fees, petitioner appeals.
On January 19, 1977, husband petitioned the court for dissolution of his marriage. The petitioner requested the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine an equitable division of property and the proper child support payment. The matter was heard before the court on March 30 and 31, 1977. On May 12, 1977, the court entered its decree of dissolution of marriage and property distribution. That decree includes findings of fact and conclusions of law which form a basis for this appeal.
The court awarded the wife the care, custody and control of the two minor children of the parties. The husband was ordered to pay as child support the sum of $175 per month per child and for the medical, dental and hospital costs and expenses of the minor children. The husband is to pay the wife as alimony the sum of $150 per month commencing May 1, 1977 and continuing through the months of June, July, August and September, 1977. The husband is to make all house payments on the residence jointly owned by the parties; the payments to include principal, interest, taxes and insurance. The payments are to continue until the home is sold after the children complete high school or upon the wife's remarriage. One-half of each house payment shall constitute alimony to the wife and shall be taxable to her income and deducted by the husband as such. From the testimony presented at trial, it is estimated the house payments are approximately $200 per month.
The decree also specified that husband pay wife's attorney fee in the amount of $2,000. The transcript does not reveal any evidence pertaining to the reasonableness of the attorney fee or the amount of work performed for the wife by her attorney.
This appeal presents three issues attacking the District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Whether the District Court erred in requiring petitioner to pay respondent $2,000 for her attorney fee, without requiring proof to demonstrate the proper amount of such fee?
2. Whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the District Court fulfill the requirements of Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P.?
3. Whether the amount of the District Court's award of child support and alimony to respondent is supported by the evidence presented at trial?
Issues 1 and 3 challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and Issue 2 challenges the procedural propriety of the findings and conclusions under Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. The transcript on appeal reveals that at no time did petitioner object to the findings; present proposed findings of his own; or, move for a new trial or for an amendment of the findings and conclusions.
Montana law 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. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrum v. Andren, 04-483.
...is not substantial error." Snavely, ¶ 11; Clemans v. Martin, 221 Mont. 483, 487, 719 P.2d 787, 789 (1986); In re Marriage of Barron, 177 Mont. 161, 164, 580 P.2d 936, 938 (1978). "It is not this Court's task, however, to review the record with the purpose of making our own findings." Snavel......
-
In re Marriage of Bartsch
...justify the distribution of a 20 percent share of the value of the stock to Patsy as instructed in Bartsch I, ¶¶ 38, 42. In In re the Marriage of Barron, we held that if a trial judge's findings and conclusions are clear to this Court, failure to state them in the recommended form is not su......
-
Wareing v. Schreckendgust
...Court rested its conclusions of law and without which the District Court's judgment would lack support. In re the Marriage of Barron (1978), 177 Mont. 161, 164, 580 P.2d 936, 938 (citation Here, the District Court heard testimony, reviewed evidence and made the determination that Wareings' ......
-
M.K. Weeden Constr., Inc. v. Simbeck & Assocs., Inc.
..."[F]indings of fact and conclusions of law are not [a] judgment, but ... the foundation for [a] judgment." In re Marriage of Barron , 177 Mont. 161, 164, 580 P.2d 936, 938 (1978) (citing State ex rel. King v. Dist. Court , 107 Mont. 476, 480, 86 P.2d 755, 757 (1939) ). "This foundation need......