MARRIAGE OF BIER v SHERRARD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-23 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F MONTANA F 1981 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F P G Y E G J O SHERRARD B I E R , ( a l s o a Respondent) P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t , LESLIE D. SHERRARD, ( a l s o an A p p e l l a n t ) Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth 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 County o f Cascade. Honorable R. D. M c P h i l l i p s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : R o b e r t J. Emrnons a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent: James, Gray and McCafferty, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana R o b e r t F. James a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: y F i; jsgf7 - ' ,p L34v,,&'P g/ ~j n ; * s s(?KD i7- , k J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1981 FE B 5 1981 C f?8;rt.h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Peggy S h e r r a r d B i e r a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y of t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o L e s l i e Sherrard . Leslie S h e r r a r d c r o s s - a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s f o r a p p e a l t o a p p e l l a n t . P e g g y and L e s l i e S h e r r a r d m a r r i e d i n 1 9 7 2 , and t w o c h i l d r e n were b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e . On J a n u a r y 4, 1 9 7 8 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n , awarding temporary c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n to Peggy, w i t h a f i n a l c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n to b e made a f t e r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of b o t h p a r e n t s and t h e oldest child. manent custody. T h i r t e e n months l a t e r , Leslie S h e r r a r d s o u g h t perA h e a r i n g was h e l d i n May 1 9 7 9 , and c u s t o d y was awarded t o Leslie. Peggy S h e r r a r d B i e r a p p e a l e d . On m o t i o n of a p p e l l a n t , t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e o r d e r e d r e s p o n d e n t t o pay $ 2 , 5 0 0 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s o n a p p e a l . T h e r e a r e t h r e e i s s u e s b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l : ( 1 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e children to the father? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n a w a r d i n g t o a p p e l l a n t c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e of b r i n g i n g t h i s a p p e a l ? ( 3 ) Does t h e a p p e a l o f t h i s c u s t o d y o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l u n d e r R u l e 32, M.R.App.Civ. P.? I n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l , Peggy S h e r r a r d B i e r m u s t show a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e j u d g e , m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e is a c l e a r p r e p o n d e r a n c e of e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g s , and m u s t overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t is correct. I n re The M a r r i a g e o f J e n s e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , P.2d 7 3 3 , 7 3 4 , 36 S t . R e p . 1259, 1261. Mont . , 597 I n reviewing t h e D i s t r i c t r e v i e w i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c u s t o d y o r d e r , t h i s C o u r t need o n l y l o o k t o t h e r e c o r d t o see i f t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n sect i o n 40-4-212, MCA, were c o n s i d e r e d , and t h e n m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t t o these criteria. M a r k e g a r d v. Markegard ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 616 C u s t o d y m u s t be d e t e r m i n e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d , w i t h t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s , including: " ( 1 ) t h e w i s h e s of t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t or p a r e n t s a s t o h i s custody; " ( 2 ) t h e w i s h e s of t h e c h i l d a s t o h i s custodian; " ( 3 ) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of the child with h i s parent o r parents, h i s s i b l i n g s , and any o t h e r p e r s o n who may s i g n i f i cantly a f f e c t the child's best interest; " ( 4 ) t h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t t o h i s home, s c h o o l , and community; and " ( 5 ) t h e m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d . " S e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA. B o t h p a r e n t s d e s i r e d c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t t h e r e were p r o b l e m s i n h e r e n t i n e i t h e r p a r e n t ' s h a v i n g c u s t o d y . The r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t Peggy was a good w i f e and m o t h e r u n t i l t h e t i m e of h e r s e p a r a t i o n from L e s l i e . A month b e f o r e t h e s e p a r a t i o n , Richard B i e r , Peggy's brother-in-law, s h o t and k i l l e d P e g g y ' s s i s t e r . negligently Peggy became e m o t i o n a l l y u p s e t a t t h a t t i m e and s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , s h e and L e s l i e s e p a r a t e d . L e s l i e moved o u t o f t h e i r t r a i l e r h o u s e b u t moved b a c k i n when Peggy and t h e c h i l d r e n moved i n w i t h R i c h a r d B i e r and h i s t h r e e children. A p p a r e n t l y Leslie a t l e a s t acquiesced to h e r l i v i n g w i t h B i e r , e v e n h e l p i n g h e r move. A f t e r t h e f i r s t move, Peggy moved b a c k and f o r t h c o n s t a n t l y , b r i n g i n g t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h h e r ; t h e r e c o r d shows some t e n t r i p s b e t w e e n t h e t w o homes d u r i n g a n 18-month p e r i o d . The t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t P e g g y ' s moves b a c k i n w i t h L e s l i e r e s u l t e d from h e r a n g e r a t B i e r , o r from h e r d i s t r e s s a t caring for five children. B i e r and Peggy f o u g h t f r e q u e n t l y and h e b e a t h e r up, c a u s i n g h e r t o go to t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y . d e v e l o p e d a d r i n k i n g p r o b l e m a£ t e r h i s h o m i c i d e c o n v i c t i o n . Bier The e v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e B i e r c h i l d r e n and t h e S h e r r a r d c h i l d r e n did not g e t along very w e l l . A f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e , Peggy r e m a i n e d i n t h e home w i t h B i e r and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p a p p a r e n t l y s t a b i l i z e d . T e s t i m o n y from w i t n e s s e s who v i s i t e d t h e home af t e r B i e r began s e r v i n g h i s sent e n c e a t Deer Lodge ( s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e ) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were w e l l - c a r e d f o r and t h a t t h e h o u s e was c l e a n . Peggy and t h e f i v e c h i l d r e n were l i v i n g on w e l f a r e . The t e s t i m o n y of t h e r e s p o n d e n t shows t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n h a v e a good r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r and t h a t h e c a n p r o v i d e a s t a b l e home f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he is a d e a f mute. The c h i l d r e n have s p e n t a g r e a t d e a l of t i m e w i t h t h e i r p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s and a p p a r e n t l y h a v e a good r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h them. R e s p o n d e n t e a r n s a good income, is employed a s a m e c h a n i c , and h a s a t r a i l e r i n which he and t h e c h i l d r e n c a n reside. The p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t e s t i f i e d t o t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t o a s s i s t respondent i n r a i s i n g the children. The f i n d i n g s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n d i c a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s - an u n f i t mother. not However, t h e judge d i d f i n d t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e n would be b e s t s e r v e d by p l a c i n g t h e children with t h e i r father. H i s findings indicate t h a t the c h i l d r e n had a b e t t e r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r , and t h a t b e c a u s e t h e r e s p o n d e n t a p p e a r e d t o be a more s t a b l e p e r s o n , t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a t h i s home would be more s u i t a b l e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . H e found t h a t d e s p i t e P e g g y ' s a d e q u a t e c a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r o b v i o u s l o v e f o r h e r , t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n of R i c h a r d B i e r i n t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t c a u s e d a n i n t o l e r a b l e u n s e t t l i n g of t h e situation. A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e judge found h e r t o be a f i t m o t h e r , s h e is t h e p r o p e r c u s t o d i a n f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . I n making s u c h an a r g u m e n t , a p p e l l a n t i s a s k i n g t h i s C o u r t t o i g n o r e t h e d i c t a t e s of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n p a s s i n g s e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA. T h a t s e c t i o n demands t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e child. F i t n e s s o f a p a r e n t is o n l y o n e f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d . S e e s e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA. A p p e l l a n t a l s o claims e r r o r i n t h e f a i l u r e of t h e j u d g e to make a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r is t h e p r e f e r r e d p a r e n t o f a m i n o r child. A l t h o u g h t h i s " t e n d e r y e a r s p r e s u m p t i o n " h a s b e e n con- s i d e r e d by d i s t r i c t j u d g e s i n t h e p a s t , t h e p r e s u m p t i o n was n e v e r c o n s i d e r e d c o n c l u s i v e ; e a c h case was c o n s i d e r e d o n i t s own f a c t s . S e e I n re M a r r i a g e o f T w e e t e n ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 404, 409, 5 6 3 P.2d 1141, 1144. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s Court r e c e n t l y ruled i n I n re t h e M a r r i a g e o f M a r k e g a r d , s u p r a , a t 3 2 5 , 37 S t . R e p . , Mont. a t 616 P.2d a t 1541, t h a t t h e " t e n d e r y e a r s presumptiont1 s h o u l d no l o n g e r be c o n s i d e r e d a t a l l i n t h i s s t a t e i n l i g h t of W e t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e U n i f o r m M a r r i a g e and D i v o r c e A c t . o v e r r u l e d T w e e t e n i n t h e M a r k e g a r d case i n so f a r as T w e e t e n supp o r t e d t h e "tender y e a r s presumption." The d i s t r i c t j u d g e h e r e was c o r r e c t i n n o t making a f i n d i n g as t o t h e p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e mother. The o l d e r S h e r r a r d c h i l d , J a s o n , a g e d 5 , was a s k e d by t h e judge about h i s p r e f e r e n c e i n custody. t o l i v e w i t h my m o m m i e . " interviewed. He responded, "I want The 2% y e a r o l d c h i l d w a s n o t A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s is a n o t h e r e x a m p l e showing t h a t t h e judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t awarding c u s t o d y t o Peggy. We disagree. Montana l a w d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e to award c u s t o d y b a s e d on a c h i l d ' s p r e f e r e n c e . f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d . Again, t h i s is merely one S e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA. S e e a l s o I n re M a r r i a g e o f Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 6 1 , 580 P.2d 439, 4 4 4 , 3 5 St.Rep. 7 0 0 , 706. The amended f i n d i n g s o f f a c t N o . 6 sets o u t J a s o n ' s p r e f e r e n c e t o be w i t h h i s m o t h e r , and l a t e r f i n d i n g s express the judge's reasons f o r disregarding t h a t preference. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e c l e a r l y f o l l o w e d t h e d i c t a t e s o f Montana l a w i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d r e n . Kramer, s u p r a ; see a l s o T w e e t e n , s u p r a , 1 7 2 Mont. a t 408, 5 6 3 P.2d a t 1 1 4 3 . A p p e l l a n t a l s o a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o f i n d a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e judge's f a i l u r e t o o r d e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l tests f o r P e g g y and J a s o n and r e q u i r i n g r e s p o n d e n t t o p a y f o r them. The d e c r e e e n t e r e d i n January 1978, l e f t t h e permanent custody decis i o n p e n d i n g u n t i l L e s l i e , J a s o n , and P e g g y r e c e i v e d e v a l u a t i o n s . A t t h e h e a r i n g i n May 1 9 7 9 , r e s u l t s of L e s l i e ' s t e s t s were a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , b u t P e g g y and J a s o n had n o t had t e s t s done because Peggy s a i d t h a t s h e c o u l d n o t a f f o r d it. The j u d g e made h i s c u s t o d y d e c i s i o n w i t h o u t o r d e r i n g t h e t e s t s to be d o n e . S e c t i o n 40-4-214 ( 2 ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s : " ( 2 ) The c o u r t may s e e k t h e a d v i c e of p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l , w h e t h e r o r n o t employed by The a d v i c e g i v e n t h e c o u r t on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . e i n w r i i n and made a v a ' l a b l e b x t h e shal courh c o u n s e f u3on r e q u e s t . E o u n s e l a y exam i n e as a w i t n e s s a n y p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l c o n s u l t e d by t h e c o u r t . " & I n S c h i e l e v. S a g e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 5 3 3 , 538-39, 571 P.2d 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 6 , we d i s c u s s e d t h i s s t a t u t e , n o t i n g t h a t it d i c - t a t e s a n e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e i n d e t e r mining w h e t h e r f i n d i n g s of p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l a r e n e c e s s a r y to resolving custody disputes. Here, t h e j u d g e ' s findings indi- c a t e t h a t h e d i d n o t f i n d it n e c e s s a r y t o o r d e r t h e tests i n May 1 9 7 9 , and a p p e l l a n t h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . In addition, a r e v i e w o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t i n d i c a t e s a n a b u n d a n c e of s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e o n which t h e j u d g e c o u l d b a s e h i s c u s t o d y d e c i s i o n w i t h o u t r e l y i n g on p r o f e s s i o n a l t e s t i m o n y . F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n considering evidence concerning Peggy's threatened suicide attempts. F i n d i n g of f a c t N o . 26 p r o v i d e s : "Evidence w a s introduced i n d i c a t i n g t h a t P e t i t i o n e r t h r e a t e n e d t o c o m m i t s u i c i d e on t w o separate occasions. " A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o support t h a t finding. on t h i s point, The r e c o r d shows con£ l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h t h e j u d g e as t h e t r i e r of f a c t is e n t i t l e d t o d r a w h i s own c o n c l u s i o n s . at , 5 9 7 P.2d a t 735, 3 6 S t . R e p . Jensen, supra, Mont. a t 1262. B a s e d o n t h e f o r e g o i n g , we f i n d n o a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by The j u d g e i n t h i s case made e x t e n s i v e t h e d i s t r i c t judge. findings, r e f l e c t i n g the relevant criteria i n determining the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e n . H i s order granting custody t o L e s l i e S h e r r a r d is a f f i r m e d . I n O c t o b e r , 1 9 7 9 , a p p e l l a n t moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o a w a r d a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s t o a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e p u r p o s e of bringing t h i s appeal. A t t h a t t i m e Judge McPhillips ordered r e s p o n d e n t t o p a y $ 2 , 5 0 0 t o a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y f o r c o s t s and f e e s , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA: - "Costs -- a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . The c o u r t f r o m t i m e t o t i m e , a f t e r considering t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r ces o f b o t h p a r t i e s , may o r d e r a p a r t y t o pay a r e a s o n a b l e amount f o r t h e cost to t h e o t h e r p a r t y of m a i n t a i n i n g o r d e f e n d i n g a n y p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r c h a p t e r s 1 and 4 o f t h i s t i t l e and f o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , i n c l u d i n g sums f o r l e g a l serv i c e s r e n d e r e d and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g or a f t e r e n t r y o f judgment . . ." Respondent cross-appeals Marriage of B l i s s , St.Rep. (1980), from t h a t o r d e r , c i t i n g I n re t h e Mont . , 609 P.2d 1 2 0 9 , 37 I n t h a t case w e s t a t e d t h a t " [ s e c t i o n 40-4-110, 708. MCA] c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t u n d e r n o r m a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n o r d e r f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s w i l l be p e r m i t t e d o n l y a f t e r c o u n s e l f o r t h e benef i t t e d p a r t y has completed h i s s e r v i c e s . , Mont. a t 609 P.2d Bliss, a t 1 2 1 2 , 37 S t . R e p . supra, a t 711. W e noted i n B l i s s t h a t a n award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s p r i o r t o a p p e a l was n o r m a l l y too s p e c u l a t i v e . An award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s , l i k e a n y o t h e r a w a r d , m u s t be b a s e d on c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e . Phennicie, 2378, 2383. (1979), Mont A showing of . , 604 P h e n n i c i e v. P.2d 7 8 7 , 7 9 1 , 3 6 S t . R e p . r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f a t t o r n e y f e e s m u s t be made by means of a h e a r i n g a l l o w i n g f o r o r a l t e s t i m o n y , the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e x h i b i t s , and a n o p p o r t u n i t y to c r o s s - e x a m i n e . A a n e n s o n v. Aanenson, 450, 36 S t . R e p . (1979), 1525, 1529. Mont . , 593 P.2d 446, W r i t t e n f i n d i n g s a r e r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h b o t h t h e p a r t y ' s n e c e s s i t y f o r payment from t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y and t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e f e e s . G o h n e r v. G o h n e r , ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 37 St.Rep. 6 1 3 , 615. Mont. , 609 P.2d 288, 289-290, The h e a r i n g i n t h e case now b e f o r e u s lacked the d e f i n i t e n e s s t h a t our l a w requires. A t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g o n t h e m o t i o n f o r f e e s and c o s t s , a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y had n o t y e t r e n d e r e d s e r v i c e s i n bringing t h i s appeal. There was nothing before t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o i n d i c a t e w h a t t h e a t t o r n e y ' s s p e c i f i c c o s t s and c h a r g e s would b e , o r e v e n how much t i m e would be r e q u i r e d to w r i t e t h e b r i e f s . The t r i a l j u d g e r u l e d o n t h e m o t i o n f r o m t h e b e n c h . H e made n o w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s as to t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d t r a n s c r i p t c o s t s s o u g h t by a p p e l l a n t . A p p e l l a n t made n o s h o w i n g ( a n d t h e j u d g e e n t e r e d no f i n d i n g ) of c i r c u m s t a n c e s n e c e s s i t a t i n g a p r o s p e c t i v e award o f f e e s and c o s t s . C e r t a i n c r i t e r i a m u s t be m e t b e f o r e a p p e a l c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n a d i s s o l u t i o n c a s e a r e awarded d u r i n g t h e pendency of t h e appeal. The p a r t y s e e k i n g t o h a v e i t s c o s t s and f e e s p a i d by t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y m u s t show t h e f i n a n c i a l n e c e s s i t y f o r s u c h a p a y m e n t , and e v i d e n c e m u s t be p r e s e n t e d t o p r o v e t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e c o s t s and f e e s . T h e r e m u s t a l s o be a s h o w i n g o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s which w a r r a n t t h e a s s e s s m e n t of costs a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l b e f o r e t h e y a r e a c t u a l l y i n c u r r e d o r rendered. Finally, t h e judge must p r e p a r e w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s t o s u p p o r t h i s or h e r r u l i n g o n t h e m o t i o n f o r c o s t s and f e e s . Because t h e p r o p e r procedure w a s not followed i n t h i s c a s e , and n o s h o w i n g was made t o w a r r a n t a p r i o r award of f e e s and c o s t s , w e v a c a t e t h a t award and remand t h i s c a u s e to t h e D i s t r i c t Court. I f , o n remand, t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e d e t e r m i n e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t is e n t i t l e d t o f e e s and c o s t s p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, he c a n make a n award b a s e d o n t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e o f t h e s e r v i c e s which now h a v e b e e n r e n d e r e d . Respondent n e x t a s k s t h i s Court t o determine t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s b r o u g h t a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , M.R.App.Civ.P., a n d t o assess damages. W e d e c l i n e t o do t h i s . We recently d i s c u s s e d t h e p r o b l e m o f f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l s i n c u s t o d y cases i n Mont. B i l l i n g s v. B i l l i n g s ( 1 9 8 0 ), 37 S t . R e p . , 616 P.2d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 6 , 1704, 1706, n o t i n g t h e r e t h a t a d v e r s a r y proceedings a r e n o t c o n d u c i v e t o t h e s p e e d y and f a i r r e s o l u t i o n of c u s t o d y cases. In Billings, s u p r a , w e found a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l , because i t a p p e a r e d t h a t Leona B i l l i n g s moved f o r a c h a n g e of v e n u e o n l y t o d e l a y a n u l t i m a t e h e a r i n g o n t h e merits o f t h e case. s i t u a t i o n is n o t p r e s e n t e d h e r e . Such a A p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be m o t i v a t e d by a d e s i r e t o n e e d l e s s l y t i e up t h e l i t i g a t i o n Although t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d to t h i s Court allowed process. a p p e l l a n t l i t t l e hope of r e v e r s a l o f t h e c u s t o d y o r d e r o n a p p e a l , w e are m i n d f u l t h a t a p a r e n t who loses a c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l p u r s u e a n y p o s s i b l e means of r e g a i n i n g h i s or h e r c h i l d r e n . I n a n a r e a o f t h e law so e m o t i o n a l l y - c h a r g e d as t h i s , w e w i l l f i n d a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l i n o n l y t h e most l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The c u s t o d y o r d e r is a f f i r m e d and t h e c a u s e is remanded f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , i n a c c o r d a n c e with t h i s opinion. Chief J u s t i c e W concur: e ' n . , I J u e i c e F r e d J . Weber, s i t t i n g o n t h e p a n e l i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e J o h n C. H a r r i s o n Mr.

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.