MARRIAGE OF BARTMESS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 81-06 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ItIONTANA 1981 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F D E N I S E L. BARTMESS, P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , BUDDY. G. BARTXESS, R e s p o n d e n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of L e w i s & C l a r k , T h e H o n o r a b l e G o r d o n R. B e n n e t t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : S m a l l , H a t c h & Doubek, Helena, Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : R u s s e l l LaVigne, Helena, Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: F 1 6 1981 m May 1, 1 9 8 1 J u l y 16, 1 9 8 1 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t The m a r r i a g e of Buddy B a r t m e s s , a p p e l l a n t , and D e n i s e B a r t m e s s , r e s p o n d e n t , was d i s s o l v e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Lewis and C l a r k County. Buddy a p p e a l s from t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y of t h e c o u p l e ' s c h i l d t o Denise. The p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d i n May 1978. b o r n t o them i n J a n u a r y 1979. t i o n i n A p r i l 1980. A d a u g h t e r was Denise p e t i t i o n e d f o r d i s s o l u - Evidentiary hearings w e r e held i n August and O c t o b e r o f 1980. The f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w e r e f i l e d on December 2, 1980. daughter. D e n i s e was awarded c u s t o d y of t h e c o u p l e ' s Buddy w a s o r d e r e d t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $100 p e r month. On December 4 , 1980, a p p e l l a n t Buddy made a motion t o a l t e r t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. December 12. A h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n was h e l d on Because t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t i s s u e amended f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , a p p e l l a n t f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on J a n u a r y 7 , 1981. On J a n u a r y 20, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s amended f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u - s i o n s o f law and d e c r e e and d a t e d them, nunc p r o t u n c , December 1 2 , 1980. A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t err by n o t a p p o i n t i n g c o u n s e l t t o represent the couple's daughter; 2. Did t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e award o f c u s t o d y t o t h e m o t h e r ; and 3 . Were t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c o u r t ' s decision? The f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d e c r e e f i l e d December 2 were s i l e n t on t h e q u e s t i o n of a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l f o r t h e minor c h i l d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have made a f i n d i n g on t h i s q u e s t i o n . M a t t e r of G u a r d i a n s h i p of G u l l e t t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 132, 140, 566 P.2d 396, 400. Also t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on t h e award of c u s t o d y c o n t a i n e d o n l y t h e c h i l d ' s name and a g e and t h e c o n c l u s o r y s t a t e m e n t t h a t i t would be i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t t h a t s h e be p l a c e d i n t h e permanent c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l of h e r mother. The f i n d i n g s on c u s t o d y d i d n o t r e c o r d t h e e s s e n t i a l and d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t s upon which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e s t e d i t s c o n c l u s i o n on t h e c u s t o d y i s s u e . Therefore, C o u r t ' s judgment a s t o c u s t o d y l a c k e d s u p p o r t . the D i s t r i c t M a r r i a g e of Barron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 161, 580 P.2d 936. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a t t e m p t e d t o remedy t h e d e f e c t s i n t h e f i n d i n g s by i s s u i n g i t s amended f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and d e c r e e . However, t h e f i l i n g of t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l d i v e s t e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e o r d e r and judgment from which t h e t h e a p p e a l was t a k e n . McCormick v. McCormick ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 136, 541 P.2d 765. A trial c o u r t c a n n o t e n t e r s u p p l e m e n t a l f i n d i n g s a f t e r a n o t i c e of a p p e a l h a s been f i l e d . Mont. -1 (1981) I - I C h u r c h h i l l v . H o l l y Sugar Corp. -. P 2d -I , 38 St.Rep. 860, 862. I n t h e a b s e n c e of a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s , w e c a n n o t r e v i e w t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o a p p o i n t c o u n s e l o r t h e award of c u s t o d y . The d e c r e e of December 2 , 1 9 8 0 , i s v a c a t e d and t h e c a u s e i s remanded f o r t h e e n t r y of new f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and d e c r e e . We c q n c u r : Justices 1

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.