MARRIAGE OF OBERGFELL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 85-03 I N THE SUPREI4E COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1985 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F MARY J O OBERGFELL, P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t , and PAUL DOUGLAS OBERGFELL, R e s p o n d e n t and R e s p o n d e n t . A P P E A L FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S e v e n 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 R i c h l a n d , T h e H o n o r a b l e R. C. M c D o n o u g h , 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 : Utick, G r o s f i e l d & Uda; Joan U d a , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : Peter 0 . M a l t e s e , Sidney, M o n t a n a -- ----S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: ---- Clerk June 2 8 , 1985 September 18, 1985 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by the wife from an order of custody and division of marital property made by the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Richland County, the Honorable R. C. McDonough presiding. We affirm. Mary Jo and Paul Obergfell were married in 1973. Two children were born of the marriage, namely Ryan and Randall who were ten years of age and eight years of age, respectively, at the time of the hearing. In 1980, after a period of separation and an unsuccessful reconciliation attempt, Mrs. Obergfell left the family home in Sidney, Montana, and moved to Billings, Montana, with Ryan and Randal 1. Shortly after her move to Billings, Mrs. Obergfell filed her petition for dissolution of marriage in Richland County. While is Billings, Mrs. Obergfell completed her degree in special education and in 1984 accepted a position as a special education instructor at the Boulder River School and Hospital in Boulder, Montana. The boys have lived continuously with Mrs. Obergfell during the school year and with their father during the summer months since the couple permanently separated in 1980. Paul Obergfell continues to live in the Sidney area and has been employed by Montana-Dakota Utilities for the past 11 years. His current residence is a mobile home which is located 15 miles southeast of Sidney on his father's farm. Mrs. Obergfell's petition for dissolution of marriage requested that she be awarded custody of the two minor children; that Paul pay her reasonable attorney's fees; and that the parties' personal property be equitably divided. In his response, Mr. Obergfell requested that he be awarded custody of the two minor children; that each party bear their own attorney's fees; and that the personal property the of p a r t i e s be e q u i t a b l y divided. The R i c h l a n d County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a f t e r a h e a r i n g h e l d S e p t e m b e r 1 3 , 1 9 8 4 , d i s s o l v e d t h e m a r r i a g e o f t h e p a r t i e s and ordered i n p a r t t h e following: 1. The parents shall have joint custody of the children. The r e s i d e n c e o f e a c h c h i l d s h a l l b e w i t h t h e m o t h e r 2. until the end turns 12 of years the of school age, year after d u r i n g which that child t i m ~ , the which child will r e s i d e permanently w i t h t h e f a t h e r . 3. The f a t h e r s h a l l pay c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $175 p e r month p e r c h i l d w h i l e t h e c h i l d r e n r e s i d e w i t h t h e mother. 4. the The f a t h e r s h a l l h a v e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g summer school vacation months while the children are s t i l l r e s i d i n g w i t h t h e mother, s u b j e c t t o t h e mother's r i g h t t o h a v e t h e c h i l d r e n f o r a 10-day p e r i o d d u r i n g s u c h summer months. 5. The m o t h e r shall have one-month summer visitation w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e r e s i d e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n h a s b e e n transferred permanently to the father. In addition, the children s h a l l a l t e r n a t e holidays with t h e parents. 6. The marital estate consists solely of personal p r o p e r t y which h a s been e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e d . 7. T h a t e a c h p a r t y i s t o p a y h i s o r h e r own l e g a l f e e s , and t h e f a t h e r i s t o pay t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a t t o r n e y . In light of the above District Court order, Mrs. O b e r g f e l l p r e s e n t s t h e following i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n changing physical custody of the parties from t h e m o t h e r reaches age the of 12 y e a r s each o f t o the and in t h e minor children of f a t h e r when e a c h c h i l d severely limiting the m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h o u t f i n d i n g harm t o t h e c h i l d r e n from the visitation? 2. Whether 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 o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award Obergfell her attorney's Mrs. fees incurred i n t h i s matter? I n a d d r e s s i n g t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . both parties recognize in their briefs the Obergfell, standard for review o f c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e s a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s C o u r t . In Bier St.Rep. v. Sherrard (Mont. 19811, 623 P.2d 550, 551, 38 158, 159, w e s t a t e d : In order t o prevail, [ a p p e l l a n t ] must show an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e j u d g e , must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e i s a c l e a r preponderance o f evidence a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g s , and must overcome t h e presumpt i o n t h a t t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t is correct. I n reviewing t h e District 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 MCA, f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n S 40-4-212, w e r e c o n s i d e r e d and t h e n must 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 findings with respect t o these c r i t e r i a . (Citations omitted.) Section 40-4-212, t r i c t C o u r t must MCA, provides the standard t h e D i s - f o l l o w i n making a c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n : The c o u r t s h a l l d e t e r m i n e t h e c u s t o d y i n accordance with t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e child. The c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l relevant factors including: (1) t h e wishes o f t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s a s t o h i s custody; (2) t h e wishes of t h e child as t o h i s custodian; (3) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and interrelation of the child with h i s parent o r parents, h i s s i b l i n g s , and a n y o t h e r p e r s o n who may significantly affect the child's best i n t e r e s t ; (4) t h e c h i l d ' s adjustment 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 o f a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved. Initially, the factors the t r i a l listed by c o u r t recogn.ized t h a t S 40-4-212, MCA, both p a r t i e s i n determining custody. noted that equally applied parents are physically to F i r s t , t h e t r i a l judge t h a t both parents d e s i r e custody of both several of and t h e c h i l d r e n and mentally able t o be c u s t o d i a n s of found the the children. c h i l d r e n had In adjusted addition, the trial t o t h e i r home, judge s c h o o l and community i n B o u l d e r d u r i n g t h e s c h o o l y e a r and t h e i r home and community i n S i d n e y d u r i n g t h e summer months. trial judge also recognized l i s t e d by S 40-4-212 that several of But, t h e the factors weighed h e a v i l y i n f a v o r o f t h e f a t h e r i n determining custody. F i r s t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t found a s t r o n g p r e f e r e n c e o f e a c h c h i l d was t o l i v e w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r i n S i d n e y on t h e farm. The f i n d i n g s show t h a t b o t h b o y s e n j o y and d e s i r e t h e f a r m l i f e s t y l e and t h a t it i s t h e i r t r u e w i s h t o l i v e w i t h t h e i r father. Second, the trial interrelationship and normal and h e a l t h y , court found interaction that with while both the boys' parties was t h e b o y s d i d e x p r e s s some n e g a t i v e f e e l - i n g s a b o u t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r and d e s i r e d n o t t o l i v e w i t h h e r i n Boulder. Also, t h e c o u r t considered 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 o f t h e b o y s w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e who may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t . The record i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l l four o f t h e boys' grandparents l i v e i n t h e S i d n e y a r e a , a l o n g w i t h a s s o r t e d m a t e r n a l and p a t e r n a l c o u s i n s , a u n t s and u n c l e s . This Court recognizes t h a t i n considering t h e f i n d i n g s issued by S 40-4-212, the D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h e g u i d e l i n e s MCA, there are factors that point l i s t e d by favorably toward t h e m o t h e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e b o y s . e r , a s t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n Gilmore v . Mont. 4 7 , 5 1 , 530 P.2d Howev- Gilmore ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 480, 482: The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f d e c i d i n g c u s t o d y i s a d e l i c a t e one which i s l o d g e d w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t court. The j u d g e h e a r i n g o r a l testimony i n such a controversy h a s a s u p e r i o r advantage i n determining t h e same, and h i s d e c i s i o n o u g h t n o t t o b e d i s t u r b e d e x c e p t on a c l e a r showing o f abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . [Citing cases. ] T h e r e f o r e , we hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court adequately conside r e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s l i s t e d i n 5 40-4-212, and d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding t h e f a t h e r custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e y r e a c h 12 y e a r s o f a g e . S i m i l a r l y , we hold t h a t t h e District Court d i d n o t abuse its discretion schedule. when determining the mother's visitation The t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f v i s i t a t i o n was not punitive i n nature, f o c u s e d upon what a s t h e mother s u g g e s t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t considered but rather t o be i n t h e best i n t e r e s t of t h e children. The second i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . Obergfell i s whether 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 o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n . c e . I n response t o t h i s i s s u e , we note t h i s Court w i l l n o t set a s i d e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t u n l e s s shown t o b e c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . M.R.Civ.P., MCA, Rule 5 2 ( a ) , 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 t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses. Furthermore, findings of f a c t a r e not c l e a r l y erroneous i f s u p p o r t e d 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 : ... is not t o This Court's function 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 determine whether 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 findi n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. (Citations omitted.) Although c o n f l i c t s may e x i s t i n t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , it 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 His judge t o r e s o l v e s u c h c o n f l i c t s . f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l where t h e y a r e based on s u b s t a n t i a l though c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. (Citations Omitted. ) Olson v. W e s t f o r k P r o p e r t i e s , I n c . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 154, 557 W e conclude t h a t 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 on t h e r e c o r d , a s e x p l a i n e d u n d e r i s s u e number o n e t o s u p p o r t the findings of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law o f t h e D i s t r i c t Therefore, w e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court ' s determina- Court. t i o n o f c u s t o d y and v i s i t a t i o n . The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . O b e r g f e l l i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award h e r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . The a w a r d i n g o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a r e g o v e r n e d by S 40-4-110, MCA, which s t a t e s : 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 resources of both 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 c o s t t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y of maintaining o r defending any p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r c h a p t e r s 1 and 4 o f t i t l e and f o r a t t o r n e y ' 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 this statute M a r r i a g e of C a r l s o n 2419. was is c l e a r l y permissive. (Mont. 19841, 693 P.2d See 496, I n Re the 4 1 St.Rep. Furthermore, t h e record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t well parties. appraised of the financial resources of both T h e r e f o r e , w e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d i r e c t i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o p a y t h e i r own a t t o r ney's fees. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur:

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.