MARRIAGE OF HEBERT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 92-237 IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHANNONK. HEBERT, Petitioner and Appellant, and THOMASP. HEBERT, Respondent APPEAL FROM: and Respondent. District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Thomas A. Olson, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Michael Montana V. Sinclair, Coil & Sinclair, Bozeman, For Respondent: Mark L. Guenther, Bozeman, Montana Nash, Guenther, Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Clerk Zimmer & Screnar, August 20, 1992 October 29, 1992 Justice R. C. McDonough delivered This is Gallatin an appeal County, petitioner. from is a sole (1) Whether requests for This issue attorney's District, fees to the is motion decree. and Property Settlement expenses insurance. a washer the decree which Respondent provided visitation were arrearages that the cost filed and dryer. a modification petitioner contended that his he did share with for support, the summer He also he stated that resources stated information expenses. and dryer collect and for delivery financial adequate a washer 2 child in his of the medical provide health amendment to answer, support. him with son's petitioner expenses, respondent's in child minor the child to modify increase Marriage by the parties. and medical In did not provide determine of transporting a petition 1984 and by petitioner's A later the respondent of their supposed to provide equally support Hebert's agreement, and one-half covered enforce on June 20, In the not was also was not a sufficient warrant appellant's and was Mr. and Mrs. in good condition. for child a washer support was issued support was to be shared Petitioner petitioner/appellant's child Agreement. child and dryer in denying upon modify The decree was to pay $200 for erred predicated to within medical Court fees. incorporated him to denying Judicial on appeal: the District action dissolution there Eighteenth an order attorney's (petitioner) of the of the Court. We affirm. There decree from the Opinion to that to the to allow He further petitioner. Finally, he alleged of visitation travel A hearing hearing that was held the judge Pursuant per expenses, dryer in child support fees for Respondent increase child support in his the respondent in overdue that pay medical a washer and the respondent pay that he should the payment of medical as visitation that Finally, party" indeed pay an the expenses travel washer and expenses had and dryer he contended so each should due to be that had neither pay his/her own fees. on March receive child Findings 5, 1992, support ordered The court to ordered The petitioner fees of Fact, it in the $75 per month until attorney's conclusions he deliver the issues contended "prevailing In the court's also order that delivered. extra and that as well been previously issued $553.14 and he calculated He stated He also attorney's of the each party. arrearages, was the of fact, that She also proposed been resolved. party findings support, support $350 per month. At the conclusion proposed arrearages proposed in child the cost parties. petitioner in good condition. attorney's proposed from both thereto child on the petition. requested month owed him one-half expenses. of law and an order $646 the petitioner Conclusions concluded amount of the arrearages pay $553.13 in medical each party to pay their filed a motion that of Law and, Order petitioner $416.91 were paid. expenses per month and an Respondent previously own attorney's to amend the judgment on March 16, 1992. 3 Petitioner's should motion was due. fees. concerning was based on a provision agreement This in the marital parties' which had been incorporated provision and property into settlement the dissolution decree. stated: In the event that either party shall institute legal proceedings to enforce, modify or interpret any provision of this agreement, the Court shall award, in addition to any other appropriate relief, a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party. The motion attorney's its was heard fees was issued. conclusion that expense however, increase and the petitioner The judge was only issue support the respondent that also medical expenses issues. the final child issue. party payment of Court, on the to support child of $350 $646 per month. order to pay $416.91 of $350 but $229.09 pay their petitioner had prevailed visitation on the child Respondent also there 4 and also proof that to the petitioner that was no "prevailing fees on the expenses issue had presented concluded own attorney's travel support a washer and dryer The court had "won" on two issues, should prevailed calculation and the prevailed delivered them. prevailing The District an increase that arrearages the washer and dryer had previously action. calculation. concluded Respondent in the and for had been granted. $66.91 above respondent's The court party child because of because he had agreed to an increase below the petitioner's she sold was the had calculated noted party she that petitioner's denied the motion that arrearages support denying increased for concluded order was no prevailing argued because her request an The court there The petitioner medical and because party" and costs. he but each party and each Post-trial Steer, motions Inc. 803 P.2d v. 601, previous "prevailing factor the Department 336, in for abuse (1990), attorney a of discretion. 245 Mont. 470, 475, clarify the term to Management 213, fees. 217-218, not the the she is that case, not Toenyes that is one party for awarded the even (1984), l'[n]o prevailing necessarily present judgment", v. states The party is In served in determining lawsuit a "money have 679 P.2d party." received Revenue Environ. be considered of prevailing E.C.A. 345, should judgment of cases party." purpose be reviewed 604. Several 208 Mont. will a money successful though necessarily or petitioner the prevailing party. In Lauderdale 1199, all 1200, there no prevailing abuse party a loss." its party" In discretion and AFFIRMED. We Concur: Grauman we stated, litigation, suffer v. that (1986), "[Tlhere is no actual where the in each both present concluding party 223 Mont. are cases where, 'prevailing parties case, that shall 357, the close of [Tlhere is at a victory District there pay 725 P.2d party.' gain the 359, was his/her but Court also did not no "prevailing own costs.
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.
