Steab v. And
| Citation | 300 P.3d 1168,370 Mont. 125 |
| Decision Date | 07 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 12–0416.,DA 12–0416. |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF John R. STEAB, Petitioner and Appellee, and Launa J. LUNA, Respondent and Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
For Appellant: Launa J. Luna (Self–Represented), Kaysville, Utah.
For Appellee: Robert T. Cameron, Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, PLLP, Helena, Montana.
[370 Mont. 126]¶ 1 Launa Luna and John Steab were married in 1987. During the marriage, the couple had three children, two of whom have reached the age of majority. Steab and Luna divorced in October 2002 when their children were fifteen and twelve years of age and twenty-two months old. The children resided at different times with either their mother or father; therefore both Luna and Steab were at times obligated to the other for child support. Since their divorce, Steab and Luna have been repeatedly engaged in some form of litigation against one another and have been before this Court on a previous appeal. See Steab v. Luna, 2010 MT 125, 356 Mont. 372, 233 P.3d 351( Steab I ). The most recent proceeding, and the one from which this appeal arises, pertains to child support arrearages on the part of both parties and the interest to be imposed on those arrearages. The First Judicial District Court's order resolved the raised issues in favor of Steab. Luna, representing herself, appeals. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
¶ 2 The factual background for this case is set forth in Steab I and will not be repeated here. This appeal challenges the legal conclusions set forth in the District Court's June 4, 2012 Order Regarding Child Support Arrearage (June 4, 2012 Order). By the time this order was issued, the two older children had reached the age of majority. Also, both parents had had legal primary custody of their youngest daughter at different times and had failed to timely pay their child support obligations to the other. This resulted in an arrearage on the part of both parents, raising an issue of the balances due and the interest owed on those balances. Additionally, Steab did not complete payment of his ordered portion of marital debt, and obtained an order of relief in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
¶ 3 The District Court's June 4, 2012 Order determined that Steab's child support arrearage was to be offset against Luna's larger child support arrearage. The court held, without factual findings, that after such offset Luna owed Steab $2,263.24 plus 12% interest per annum until paid. The court further ordered that Steab was not required to pay interest on his arrearages to Luna retroactive to October 2008, and that the marital debt owed by Steab had been discharged in Bankruptcy Court in 2011 and was no longer a debt owed by him to Luna.
¶ 4 It is from the June 4, 2012 Order that Luna appeals.
¶ 5 Luna raises numerous issues on appeal. A restatement of those issues is:
¶ 6 Did the District Court commit reversible error when it did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with its June 4, 2012 Order Regarding Child Support Arrearage?
¶ 7 Did the District Court err in awarding Steab 12% retroactive interest on Luna's arrearage?
¶ 8 Was Steab's February 2012 Motion for Order Directing Child Support Enforcement Division to Offset Arrearage and Request for Attorney's Fees timely filed with the District Court?
¶ 9 Did the District Court abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court determination that Steab's marital debt was discharged by the Bankruptcy Court in 2011?
¶ 10 Determining the method to be used to calculate interest is an issue of law that this Court reviews to determine whether the district court's application or interpretation of the law is correct. Weiss v. Weiss, 2011 MT 240, ¶ 8, 362 Mont. 157, 261 P.3d 1034.
¶ 11 We review a district court's decision to take judicial notice of facts and law for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chapel, 41 F.3d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1135, 115 S.Ct. 2017, 131 L.Ed.2d 1015 (1995).
¶ 12 This case has a long and complex procedural history. It is unnecessary to recite all of this history in order to resolve the discrete issues presented. The last three orders of the court are at issue here. In brief, they are:
October 19, 2011 Order
This Order amended and corrected the October 2, 2008 Order and Judgment to reflect that as of December 31, 2007, Steab owed $20,648 in child support arrears and $13,598.26 in marital debt rather than $34,246.26 in child support arrears.
This order addressed the District Court's August 18, 2011 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order and the court's October 19, 2011 Order and stated:
1. Steab's motion requesting an order that the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) cease garnishing Steab's wages was timely filed;
2. CSED was ordered to offset Steab's March 27, 2012 $5,744.28 arrearage against Luna's March 27, 2012 $7,378 arrearage;
3. CSED was to stop garnishing Steab's wages;
4. Steab's child support obligation was fulfilled; and
5. the parties were ordered to submit simultaneous interest calculations by May 15, 2012.
Based upon the parties' submitted interest calculations, this order:
1. struck the amount of Luna's arrearage referenced in the March 27, 2012 order;
2. entered a child support arrearage judgment in favor of Steab and against Luna for $2,263.24, which included a 12% interest on arrears and imposed a 12% annual interest rate until Luna's arrearage was paid in full;
3. denied Luna's request for interest retroactive to October 2008; and
4. took judicial notice that Steab's marital debt had been discharged in Bankruptcy Court in 2011.
¶ 13 Did the District Court err when it did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with its June 4, 2012 Order Regarding Child Support Arrearage?
¶ 14 Luna notes that in the District Court's March 27, 2012 Order Regarding Child Support, the court requested that both parties submit an interest calculation regarding child support arrearages to the court for its consideration. She claims that Steab included unsolicited information in his submission, in an attempt to “re-litigate the [March 27] 2012 Order Regarding Child Support.” She argues she had no opportunity to respond to Steab's submission. She further claims that the District Court considered this unsolicited information and adopted it, without findings of fact “as to the evidentiary basis,” in the June 4, 2012 Order. Relying upon in rE marriage oF barron, 177 mont. 161, 580 P.2d 936 (1978), in rE estate of Craddock, 173 Mont. 8, 566 P.2d 45 (1977), and Jones v. Jones, 190 Mont. 221, 620 P.2d 850 (1980), and arguing the importance of adequate findings, Luna asserts this is reversible error.
¶ 15 While we acknowledge that this Court has underscored the critical importance of adequate findings of fact in the cases cited by Luna, we conclude these cases are distinguishable and inapposite. In Barron, we required findings of fact in order to establish the foundation for the court's judgment. Barron, 177 Mont. at 164, 580 P.2d at 938. In Craddock, we remanded for findings of fact because the court had not explained the basis for admitting a contested will to probate. Craddock, 173 Mont. at 11–12, 566 P.2d at 46. In Jones, the appeal was from certain visitation arrangements contained in the parties' settlement agreement and divorce decree. Thus, these cases concerned determinations made by the district court following trial. Here, by contrast, Steab had submitted interest calculations as directed by the court, and alerted the court in his submission that there was an error contained in the court's previous order pertaining to Steab's arrearage amount. Because it is apparent that the court simply adopted Steab's analysis as set forth in his motion, it was unnecessary for the court to enter formal findings and conclusions. A district court is not required to state findings and conclusions when ruling on a motion. M.R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3). We therefore reject Luna's challenge in this regard.
¶ 16 Did the District Court err in awarding Steab 12% interest on Luna's arrearage?
¶ 17 In Luna's submission of interest calculations, she calculated interest owed by Steab at the statutory rate of 10% per annum retroactive to October 2, 2008. Steab, on the other hand, proposed that interest be calculated beginning on November 1, 2011, shortly after the District Court amended and corrected the October 2008 Order and Judgment.1 Additionally, he recommended a per annum rate of 12%.
¶ 18 When Steab submitted his interest calculations, he provided the District Court with two calculations—one based upon his arrearages as set forth in the March 27, 2012 Order Regarding Child Support and one using a corrected arrearage balance based upon CSED's release of additional payments to Luna. The District Court adopted Steab's calculation using the arrearage balances set forth in the March 27, 2012 order.
¶ 19 In his calculations, Steab applied a 12% annual interest rate on both parties' arrearages from November 2011 forward. After performing his interest calculations, Steab determined that he owed $281.01 in interest and Luna owed $516.46 in interest. Adding these interest amounts to each arrearage balance, Steab concluded he owed Luna a total of $5,631.22 and Luna owed him $7,894.46. Performing the offset, he subtracted his arrearage from Luna's, and derived a total due to him from Luna of $2,263.24. The District Court adopted this amount and ordered Luna to pay 12% annual interest on this balance until it was paid in full.
¶ 20 Citing § 25–9–205, MCA, Luna argues that Steab “cannot collect 12% interest retroactively” on her alleged arrearage. Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter-Scanlon v. And
...West v. Club at Spanish Peaks LLC, 2008 MT 183, ¶ 44, 343 Mont. 434, 186 P.3d 1228;In re Marriage of Steab, 2013 MT 124, ¶ 11, 370 Mont. 125, 300 P.3d 1168 (citing U.S. v. Chapel, 41 F.3d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir.1994)). We review a district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law which ......
- Wheaton v. Bradford
-
Estate of Kinnaman v. Mountain W. Bank, N.A.
...In re Marriage of Carter–Scanlon, 2014 MT 97, ¶ 15, 374 Mont. 434, 322 P.3d 1033 ; In re Marriage of Steab, 2013 MT 124, ¶ 11, 370 Mont. 125, 300 P.3d 1168. We also review for abuse of discretion a district court's ruling on a motion for relief from judgment brought under Rule 60(b)(6) of t......