PINTO v ANDERSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 93-575 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA IN RE THE GRANDPARENT VISITATION OF BRENDAN HUNTER ............................ DONNA PINTO, Petitioner and Respondent, v. PAIGE ANDERSON, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln, The Honorable Robert S. Keller, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Paul A. Sandry, Warden, Christiansen, Johnson and Berg, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: David W. Harman, Libby, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: February 17, 1994 March 10, 1994 Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. Paige Anderson (Paige) appeals from a decision of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County. The court ordered that Paige's mother, Donna Pinto (Donna), could enjoy grandparent visitation with Paige's son, Brendan Hunter. We affirm. The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred by issuing its grandparent visitation decree without specifically setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in the decree. In June 1993, Donna petitioned the court for permanent grandparent visitation with her grandson. Donna also moved the court for temporary visitation during the 1993 summer. At a hearing on the motion for temporary visitation, the court stated that it was prepared to consider evidence and to enter a permanent order. Both parties stated that was satisfactory. The court issued a grandparent visitation decree after determining that it would be in Brendan's best interests to visit with his grandmother and that there is a bonding between the pair. Paige appeals. Did the District Court err by issuing its grandparent visitation decree without specifically setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in the decree? ~aige asserts that the court erred because it 2 failed to comply with Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. by failing to set forth Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law upon which it had based its Order. Paigels argument is not credible in light of the record and the plain language of Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., which states: It will be sufficient if the [court's] findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence or appear in an opinion or memorandum of decision filed by the court. After reviewing the record, we hold that the court orally found facts at the hearing on the motion for temporary visitation and that its findings and conclusions were properly recorded in open court. We conclude that the District Court did not err. Af finned. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company. 4? F Chief Justice We concur: March 10, 1994 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following named: Paul A. Sandry, Esq. Warden, Christiansen, Johnson & Berg P.O. Box 3038 Kalispell, MT 59903-3038 David W. Harman Attorney at Law 120 West Sixth St. Libby, MT 59923 ED SMITH CLERK O F THE SUPREME COURT
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.
