SUPPORT OF ROCKMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 85-162 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1985 I N RE THE SUPPORT O F ROCKPIAN. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h 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 C a s c a d e , T h e H o n o r a b l e J o e l G. R o t h , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : H a r t e l i u s & Ferguson; G r e a t Falls, M o n t a n a C h a n n i n g J. H a r t e l i u s , For R e s p o n d e n t : C h u r c h , H a r r i s , Johnson & W i l l i a m s ; L a B a r , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana D o n a l d A. - - S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Nay 30, 1985 D e c i d e d : S e p - k e m b e r 5 , 1 9 85 SEP S -- 1985 Filed: 'cc Clerk Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. Bryce L. Rockman (father) and Connie J. Rockman (mother) each appeals an order of the Cascade County District Court which reduced father's monthly obligation of child support. We affirm. The issues are: Did the District Court err in reducing the father's 1. child support obligation? 2. Did the District Court err in failing to award attorney's fees and costs to appellant? 3. Did the District Court err in setting the monthly support obligation at $175 per child for a total of $525? 4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in not making the modification effective April 17, 1984, the date the father filed his motion to reduce his child support payments? 5. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in failing to give credit of $3,840 against delinquent child support payments of $11,527? 6. Did the District Court err in allowing the father visitation every other Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. until the children's bedtime? Their marriage was The parents were married in 1970. dissolved in 1982. Mother received custody of the couples' three children, and father was ordered to make support payments of $330 p e r month for each child. Father moved to modify his child based upon a change of circumstances. support obligation On November 19, 1984, the District Court ordered the father's child support obligation reduced to $175 per month for each child. In addition, the court modified the visitation rights of the father and ordered each party to bear his/her own attorney's fees and costs. Did the District Court err in reducing the father's child support obligation? , The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p u r s u a n t t o S 40-4-208 ( 2 ) ( b ) ( i ) MCA, may modify changed make a child support circumstances the [original so or obligation substantial previous] "upon and a showing o f continuing terms as to unconscionable. " M o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h e e v i d e n c ~p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g d i d n o t show a c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o s u b s t a n t i a l a n d c o n t i n u i n g a s t o render t h e o r i g i n a l decree unconscionable. This Court w i l l n o t reverse t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o n the issue of modification of child support unless t h e findings of f a c t a r e c l e a r l y erroneous. R u l e 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., states i n pertinent part: Findings o f f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and d u e r e g a r d s h a l l be given t o t h e opportunity of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of the witnesses. Findings o f f a c t a r e not c l e a r l y erroneous i f supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e : . . . This Court's function is not t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment i n p l a c e o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t s b u t r a t h e r it i s " c o n f i n e d t o determining whether t h e r e i s substant i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support" t h e 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. Although c o n f l i c t s may e x i s t i n the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , i t i s t h e d u t y and f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge t o r e s o l v e H i s findings w i l l not be such c o n f l i c t s . d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l w h e r e t h e y a r e b a s e d though conflicting on substantia1 evidence. Olson v. Westfork 1 5 7 , 557 P . 2 d Properties, Inc. (1976), 1 7 1 Mont. 154, 8 2 1 , 823 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s s e c o n d c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w h e l d : The f a v o r a b l e c h a n g e i n e c o n o m i c c i r c u m [mother] and t h e unfastances f o r v o r a b l e change i n economic c i r c u m s t a n c e s [father], both occurring a f t e r of t h e decree of dissolution herein a r e so s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g a s o f t h e p r e s e n t t i m e a s t o make t h e t e r m s o f t h e ... ... c h i l d s u p p o r t d e c r e e o f August unconscionable pursuant to 40-4-208 ( 2 ) ( b ) ( i )MCA. 1 9 , 1982 section The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a s i n h e r i t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l sum o f money, corporation, income has and now owns a home, changed monthly average o f W e r e c e i v e s p e r i o d i c income from t h e f a m i l y conclude from a $2,315 the debt free. maximum o f The f a t h e r ' s $ 3 , 8 0 0 a month to a f o r J u n e t h r o u g h September 1984. record contains substantial evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court's credible f i n d i n g s o f a sub- s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e n d e r i n g t h e o r i g i n a l decree unconscionable. erroneous. We The f i n d i n g s a r e n o t c l e a r l y affirm t h e District Court's modification of t h e c h i l d support obligation. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o award a t t o r - n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s t o a p p e l l a n t ? Section 40-4-110, MCA, governs t h e awarding o f attor- ney's fees. The c o u r t from t i m e t o t i m e , a f t e r considering t h e financial rpsources of both p a r t i e s , may o r d e r a p a r t y t o p a y a r e a s o n a b l e amount o r t h e c o s t t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y of maintaining o r defending 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 i t l e and for attorney's fees, this i n c l u d i n g sums f o r l e g a l s e r v 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 o r a f t e r e n t r y o f judgment. The c o u r t may o r d e r t h a t t h e amount b e p a i d d i r e c t l y t o t h e a t t o r n e y , who may e n f o r c e t h e o r d e r i n h i s name. This Court has i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e awarding o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s under t h i s s t a t u t e i s n o t mandatory. of Carlson (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 693 P.2d 496, S e e I n re t h e M a r r i a g e 4 1 St.Rep. 2419. The c o u r t was w e l l a p p r a i s e d o f t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s o f b o t h parents. We find no a b u s e of discretion in directing the p a r t i e s t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s . Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n s e t t i n g t h e m o n t h l y s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t $175 p e r c h i l d f o r a t o t a l o f $525? Father contends t h a t t h e c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n should have been child. reduced t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $125 p e r month f o r each F a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e h o u s e and c a r a r e d e b t free t o t h e mother, h i s support obligation o n l y on t h e o u t - o f - p o c k e t should be based expenses o f t h e mother. This logic is erroneous. The c o u r t need n o t l i m i t i t s c a l c u l a t i o n o f a child obligation support to a percentage of out-of-pocket expenses. stated, As substantial t h e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w i s w h e t h e r t h e r e j.s c r e d i b l e evidence D i s t r i c t Court's findings. i n t h e record t o support t h e The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l . e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g on t h e amount needed by t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e amount husband c a n p a y . W e a f f i r m t h e award. IV. Did making the the District Court t h e modification father filed his abuse its effective April motion to reduce discretion 17, his 1984, child in not the date support payments? S e c t i o n 40-4-208 ( I ) , MCA, governs t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of modification. (1 Except a s otherwise provided i n 40-4-201 ( 6 ) , a d e c r e e may b e m o d i f i e d by support only a s t o the court a s t o i n s t a l l m e n t s accruing subsequent t o t h e motion f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . ... The s t a t u t e l e a v e s t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. should filed. which be retroactive The would record require Father contends t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e t o t h e d a t e t h e o r i g i n a l m o t i o n was does a not change a f f i r m t h e District Court. contain substantial in effective the evidence date. We v. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g to give credit of $3,840 against delinquent child support payments o f $11,527? Father Pursuant ordered requests to to proceeds the sell over home in the amount dissolution in Alabama t h e mother. it was n e c e s s a r y sale, offset original a to an In decree, and turn order for either the of $3,840. father the net t o consummate was sale the f a t h e r o r mother t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e p u r c h a s e r s ' house payments w i t h $160 p e r month f o r two y e a r s , a total of $3,840. s u p p l e m e n t e d t h e h o u s e payments. o s i t y should o f f s e t a p a r t of The f a t h e r v o l u n t a r i l y Father contends h i s genert h e delinquent child support obligation. I n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r an o f f s e t s h o u l d b e p e r m i t t e d , t h i s C o u r t l o o k s f i r s t t o w h e t h e r b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h e payment I n r e t h e Mar- would o f f s e t t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . r i a g e o f Good 2109, 2111. (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 691 P.2d 1 3 3 7 , 1339, 4 1 S t . R e p . The r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o n t a i n e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f a t h e r and m o t h e r a g r e e d t o offset the against t h e child support obligation. father's generosity W e affirm the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f an o f f s e t . VI . Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a l l o w i n g t h e f a t h e r v i s i tation every o t h e r Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. until the chil- dren ' s bedtime? F i n d i n g o f f a c t number 4 i n d i c a t e s t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t ed t o an e x t e n s i v e v i s i t a t i o n agreement. the agreement covered cluding Father's Thanksgiving Day, Halloween. Mother's summer v a c a t i o n , and Christmas, Day, Fourth of Among o t h e r t h i n g s , school holidays children's July, in- birthdays, Labor Day and I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t awarded t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a - t i o n e v e r y o t h e r Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. until the children's bedtime. W e conclude t h e record c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i - b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of v i s i t a tion rights. W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court. 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.
