MARRIAGE OF PARK

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-154 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: SHERYL L. PARK, Petitioner and Respondent, VS . STERLING C. PARK, Appellant and Respondent. ,Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Deer Lodge, Montana Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Michael J. McKeon, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : C. F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana Submitted on briefs: November 6 , 1980 Decided :Fry r. , i 1, . 3 1980 M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. S t e r l i n g Park appeals f r o m a D e e r Lodge County D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r d i r e c t i n g h i m t o pay m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t f o r h i s w i f e and c h i l d r e n . The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on A p r i l 20, 1971, i n Orem, Utah. T h r e e c h i l d r e n w e r e b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e and w e r e o f m i n o r age a t t h e t i m e t h e c a u s e was f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t . A f t e r hear- i n g t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n g S t e r l i n g P a r k t o pay $ 1 3 5 p e r week f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f h i s w i f e S h e r y l and t h e c o u p l e ' s t h r e e c h i l d r e n . No s p e c i a l findings o f f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w were e n t e r e d w i t h t h e judgment. T h e i s s u e we a r e a s k e d t o a d d r e s s i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judgment i s s u f f i c i e n t and p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d . We f i n d t h a t i t was n o t . Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., commands t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o f i n d t h e f a c t s s p e c i a l l y and s t a t e s e p a r a t e l y i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . T h e f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 52, M.R.Civ.P., i s fatal to the v a l i d i t y o f the order. T h i s C o u r t d i s d a i n s i t s r o l e as t h e c o r r e c t o r o f m i s t a k e s t o o obvious t o question. We g r o w w e a r y o f c o n t i n u a l d i s r e g a r d o f t h e m o s t b a s i c r u l e s o f p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e . are clear, These r u l e s a n d t h i s C o u r t e x p e c t s and demands t h a t t h e y be followed. T h e o r d e r i s v a c a t e d and and r e m a n d e d f o r t h e e n t r y o f a proper order. W concur: e

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.