BURRIS v BURRIS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13288 I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA H OR F H F 1976 M R H J. BURRIS, ATA P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, BILLY C. BURRIS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Smith and Rice, Havre, Montana Ronald W. Smith argued, Havre, Montana For Respondent: Frank Altman argued, Havre, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald Smith appeared, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted: Filed ::!F?. b ' I976 October 27, 1976 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , H i l l County, s i t t i n g without a j u r y , Hon. LeRoy McKinnon, presiding. The judgment modified a divorce decree entered March 1, 1974, i n c r e a s i n g a c h i l d support f o r t h e youngest and only remaining minor c h i l d from $125 per month t o $200, and specifying t h e l e n g t h of t h e v i s i t a t i o n period t h e f a t h e r i s e n t i t l e d t o have with t h e c h i l d annually. P l a i n t i f f Martha B u r r i s was granted a divorce from defendant B i l l y B u r r i s on March 1, 1974. The divorce granted p l a i n t i f f mother $250 per month alimony, plus $125 per month c h i l d support f o r each of t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n of t h e marriage. Child support was t o continue u n t i l each c h i l d reached h i s majority. Defendant was t o have reasonable v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s with t h e c h i l d r e n , and p l a i n t i f f was granted custody. A t t h e end of t h e school year i n 1974, p l a i n t i f f mother and t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n moved t o Oklahoma. She c u r r e n t l y i s employed t h e r e a s a t e a c h e r ' s a i d e and i s paid $2.10 p e r hour during t h e school year. Two of t h e c h i l d r e n have now reached majority and t h e mother now receives support payments only f o r t h e youngest . I n May 1975, defendant f a t h e r brought an a c t i o n t o modify t h e o r i g i n a l decree requesting t h e alimony o b l i g a t i o n be s t r i c k e n and t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s be more c l e a r l y defined. The mother f i l e d a c r o s s - p e t i t i o n i n response requesting modification of t h e decree increasing t h e amount of support f o r each of two c h i l d r e n who were minors a t t h a t time. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment increased t h e c h i l d support f o r t h e remaining minor c h i l d and granted t h e t h e f a t h e r s i x weeks v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s each summer. The i s s u e f o r review on t h i s appeal i s whether t h e evidence i s s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. This Court's f u n c t i o n i n review of a determination of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment i n place of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s , b u t r a t h e r i t i s confined t o determining i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s determination. Hornung v. E s t a t e of Lagerquist, 155 Mont. 412, 420, 473 P.2d 541. The f a c t t h a t t h e r e may have been c o n f l i c t s i n t h e testimony does not mean t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . 361, 497 P.2d 315. Davis v. Davis, 159 Mont. 355, Transamerica I n s , Co. v. G l a c i e r Gen. Assur. Co., 163 Mont, 454, 461, 517 P.2d 888. I n t h e i n s t a n t m a t t e r evidence was presented by each p a r t y and, of n e c e s s i t y , was i n p a r t c o n f l i c t i n g . However, t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence of a' change of circumstances s i n c e t h e o r i g i n a l decree --- increased expenses on t h e p a r t of t h e p l a i n t i f f mother and increased income of t h e defendant f a t h e r . There was s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, and t h e r e f o r e we f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n and t h e judgment i s affirmed. #is t i c e ,budge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e t'wesley C a s t l e s . ; i - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.