MARRIAGE OF MCFARLAND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 96-527 IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1997 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF THEODOREC. MCFARLAND, Petitioner and Respondent, and MARLA R. MCFARLAND, n/k/a Respondent and Appellant. MARLA R. MCFARLAND, n/k/a Plaintiff MARLA R. WARD, MARLA R. WARD, and Appellant. v. THEODOREc. MCFARLANDand CLINTON L. MCFARLAND, Defendants APPEAL FROM: and Respondents. District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Robert W. Holmstrom, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Randy S. Laedeke; Montana Laedeke Law Office, Billings, For Respondents: James A. Patten; Green, Billings, West, Patten, Montana Submitted Filed: Bekkedahl on Briefs: Decided: & December 5, 1996 February 18, 1997 Justice Karla M. Gray Pursuant to 1995 Internal precedent with to Section Clerk Montana is of the State Reporter District postjudgment law, and granting compelling affirm the affirm the motion the her Court, to not on of Yellowstone 4, of enter a partial court's order on Marla's court's order Theodore granting 1996, motion Theodore's by the by operation of and, R. determining C. McFarland satisfaction result as Marla County, had been deemed denied motion its Company. known June as document Publishing formerly Court be cited as a public and West entered Judicial Supreme and by a report orders Thirteenth Court. shall filing R. Ward, from the Montana decision by its Court of 3 (c), by Marla (Marla), her this Supreme an appeal Opinion Paragraph Rules, McFarland that the be published Law Week, This I, Operating and shall the delivered of (Theodore) judgment. on that We basis, also motion. BACKGROUND This case arises out of a proceeding marriage instituted by Theodore, during asserted an action as plaintiff against Clinton Court L. filed its proceedings addition the that on to therein McFarland conclusions November 13, dissolving Heart Theodore the Nine had cattle. 22 of Theodore In of The in those pertinent with the regard cattle at 2 to the the time District underlying court assets, marital and in distributed exception cattle, of Marla father, part, the of which and his marriage, With the course and order 1995. parties' and Marla's the dissolution McFarlands) findings, Theodore Lazy (collectively, for the it of found marriage, that Marla helped Theodore's father Theodore half the Court for purposes the cattle amount and of which to the total number of of as "one-half I, It also of before the reasonable of that the 1996, the Marla to the for held with was entered an to the marriage judgment share taken, filed was entitled the to marital relating regard Marla during was a new trial, Court which cattle inventory Judgment and District findings her fees. of were was entitled livestock share cattle, of amend or the number in necessary Marla. to its the Marla's sale to cattle, were cattle, proceedings representing attorney number having of and thereon . in . the livestock $10,000 for on January 1996. pursuant to was held, 4, 60(a), the Rule and the McFarlands 60(b) (61, District moved M.R.Civ.P. Court for relief Marla denied the from responded, McFarlands' the judgment a hearing motion on 1996. On March Rule 19, and the found Thereafter, March from and further increase "one of containing $2,678.71 amount 31, the receive should proceedings a motion cattle Marla the filed Memorandum for evidence be awarded On January trustee number the and that Insufficient to denied, cattle. and sold fees marriage, further proceeds father court Order . any attorney the that determining of Theodore's cattle." the constructive that regarding determined of as found the trial during cattle further of at number the it increase presented District the held and Marla; of been increase 27, 1996, M.R.Civ.P., Marla filed motion to correct 3 a motion which alleged was styled clerical as a mistakes in the of sale case court's order proceeds The compelling Marla judgment, and support 1996. Mar-la day, tendered also execution the livestock judgment moved for the from a partial tender. moved of date and in in of an order judgment. They amount of the filed of the judgment, of opposition the aid in for satisfaction The parties own motions entered monetary the and amount an order McFarlands Marla of of satisfaction thereon refused their the to interest she number a partial on her of and in the to enter plus that to her following have conditioned over 31, execution. to the set on January claimed specifying judgment, memoranda to each in other's motions. On June concluding 4, that postjudgment denied granting requiring motion to for and, as a result, facts of set the law. compel of entered an ruling to the June Marla's her also entered execute portion the on order that The court Marla satisfying from are of to her appeals and resolution provided passed judgment payment Additional Court by operation of Marla District time had the satisfaction the the motion was deemed order 1996, of motion an a partial the judgment 1996, orders. $12,678.71. both forth issues of below before as necessary 4, to our discussion us. Did the District Court err in concluding that Marla's postjudgment motion was deemed denied by operation of law? The District had been its failure deemed to Court denied rule concluded pursuant on the motion that to Rule within 4 Marla's postjudgment 60(c), the time motion M.R.Civ.P., due to provided therein. Marla's sole period argument does under not Rule law 103, is 106, 870 P.2d In 91, denied. motions for motions for motions to In however, a party clerical mistakes to oversight or 60 of "deemed Cc) motions and, provide upon committed a trial interpretation (1994), 264 Mont. under "at a party or 60(a), is does not apply Rule for 59 (g) , above, correction to M.R.Civ.P., Rule errors on its In a trial arising from own initiative addition, limited a Rule of 60(a), permits and to and referenced pursuant expressly governs M.R.Civ.P. motion notice. are M.R.Civ.P., under whether any time," they M.R.Civ.P., motions orders and after therefore, 59(a), certain denial 60(b), and 59(g), mistakes period Rule made postjudgment if 60 days, deemed Rule judgment Rule that, within 60-day 59(d), clerical denial" the time was brought We review made under judgments omission on motion 60(c) Court whether a postjudgment terms, correct or the may file By its District Barnard ruled amend 60(c), in Rule motion of the made or to the Procedure not trial addition M.R.Civ.P. determine judgment See Rules M.R.Civ.P. to Civil are alter the re Marriage of from new because the otherwise. Specifically, relief that 93. Rules motions deemed motion is and that law correct. postjudgment her regard concluding of The Montana court to in conclusions the this M.R.Civ.P., error court's of apply 60(a), reversible in to 60(a), the Rule Rule 60(b) M.R.Civ.P., motion. This motion was brief review a Rule of 60(a), the Rules M.R.Civ.P., 5 makes it motion clear that to correct if Marla's clerical mistakes, the District Court erred in was deemed denied by operation of Thus, address whether concluding Marla's we M.R.Civ.P., motion to point The starting motion was on not a substance the a motion requested what done, determined the action. Matters "apparent on the fixed 154 P.2d requests motion, us, face in for in the the 983-84 (citation change the context and, that of the therefore, rendered Morse overall motion was not it the 272 Mont. an issue test is over whether the truth as be determined action or or intended correction must cannot or (1945), be effectuate change the 116 Mont. rights 504, 508, Examining case the in Marla's contained the that such omitted). or correction to . . . ;'I they judgment a party examine speak a mere record v. of her Clerical (1995), record alter that caption the intended is to correct, supporting Morse 982, or the event make the will judgment. we conclude motion of change by the change 60(a), Correct Herbert the to done, properly actual In merely or whether an or will Rule error to by v. 275. motion M.R.Civ.P. a appropriate is a mere motion change was 273, of Motion See Miller P.2d is it 60(c), was assertion however, rather, the mistakes. 60(a) bound, Rule motion Marla's motion. 900 135-36, under clerical "Rule motion; of whether to a We are places the for styled Mistakes." 132, correct law that postjudgment and the a Rule was deemed record 60(a), denied specific before M.R.Civ.P., by operation of law. The first relates to "clerical one liability mistake" of which distributed 6 Marla to sought Theodore correction via the dissolution and findings, conclusions parties' assets those assets a $1,300; asset and judgment liability to to to Marla for of the amount of incorporated its the findings. and The liabilities reflected, among First to loan had been on earlier other Citizens was in was inadvertently Bank any that the of nature by does of the the not marital 7 include occurring loan Theodore or to omitted of the judgment, failure to to the a clerical court the or in on which include First mistake such Citizens or contrary "enforcement" liabilities assume from and orders regard include to requiring the the trial judgment events conclusions with judgment to face provisions omitted alleged off the the liability "inadvertently" suggests liability of language pay findings, Bank on that either nothing or payment The Bank based was entered, judgment regard the specifically the "correction" She asserted the to the enforcement with Citizens language However, comparison intent. First arrangements judgment. law $1,300 requested the judgment. liability the motion, enforcement make in assets A which all and in the the forth Theodore. regard the of contained of set 1995, and distributed Bank Exhibit distribution her specific Citizens distributed 13, was assigned conclusions attaching the entirety banks distribution by Court several First thereon November District their at Court's entered its Theodore at liability things, In in those District accordingly, the liabilities. liability the In and order, including including after thereon. and liabilities and liabilities, with judgment that to it its provisions distributed to Theodore and, ordinarily indeed, do not every to contain such distributed liability possible to conclude such provisions was that inadvertent with particularly need record . . this regard the motion for . .'I portion dissolution proceedings with regard to As a result, it Court's failure to a party. District the mere First Citizens matters "correct" in this record, it correction is of "apparent not 154 P.2d of Marla's motion next request for at did is not include liability addition, regard is was based clear on the 983-84. not and Bank error. not each In clerical to See Morse -I in language to a postjudgment purported the or since on alleged judgments that the of the face We conclude seek a mere that clerical correction. Marla's inclusion of costs incurred in her cattle. She pursuant noted prevailing party specifically their own fees of costs legal word costs merits argument is a "clerical of Marla's costs of had prayed for she was entitled and her this to that for that portion the parties would motion of costs her her as the District of the in relief asserts was a "mistake," share those the Her her, costs. as a matter Marla's her the and to she recover case, except awarded inclusion to the that, the MCA, and expenses 5 25-10-101, was for to she that in correction" action that complaint, stated to third-party third-party judgment a "clerical Court's attorney fees be responsible for that since the court's she was entitled law. that the District mistake" is underlying Court's without request 8 failure merit. for costs, to Whatever it is award the clear that the District its judgment incurred. that even if affirmative to alter action or amend or judgment, but would alter it is 154 P.2d at which action next request set distribution receive to taken relief clerical to for costs requested Such 59, in it an is act M.R.Civ.P., motion by a an may be motion for relief to from revision pursuant to clerical correct or included mistake; court. a Rule subject mistakes because intended to the the "correction" exhibit to numbers of those cattle to District of the marriage. a mere the it responsible M.R.Civ.P., the of half parties' by to requested that forth to reflect a mere 60(b), not be when be taken. a Rule it See Morse, 984. Marla's was her not act motion the would pursuant M.R.Civ.P., (a), is a Rule request on substantive intended revision that party erroneous, and subject rejected each A court's party, 60 Court of a substantive that increase Again, "correction than Court's the cattle Marla the of herd which judgment types and the be "corrected" intent that occurred during she the Marla's request was for in the judgment rather the rights Theodore mistake" had judgment. The cows this at the time Court of the determination pregnant which District cows. constituted determined parties' and, The her various stated that mistake" Court's and Theodore we disagree a clerical a "clerical District consistently in change--in of District a marital favor--in that marriage. indeed, she Court asset 9 Marla describes determined were 86 cows, does fixed 22 head not those that by of dispute cows the 12 heifers, as cattle 84 and 3 herd calves 31 4 heifers, District bulls. asset those during the parties' awarding Marla which Marla's awarded her the in the of more with the the District the number 86 Marla of cows came very close of the herd bulls of calves number District Court's herd during precisely clear half what the she intent to award By her the 84 calves which and was awarded perceives to to judgment she was marriage. the sought in general "half District Court's various types we cannot the that control cows. that or 42 calves, correction" the her reflect be only a mere 50% share calves. reflects into is asset, she court the awarded the and half to marital Thus, the that from then in 32 cows, clear cows court the she was entitled entitled, Marla's argument increase the is increase heifers Marla asset. the contrasted to marital of of the the the the calves. number of reflect part It Likewise, not Given be half the "mathematical of half marriage. primary reckoning, 31 premarital 22 64 cows; does half were the cows--precisely constituted awarded bull. leaving cows, Court 1 herd subtracted 32 of to and calves Court marital The District District of say its that is too account her own description Since the cows were math Court properly specific the in to the Marla which record intended this of its of us and it from is the to clearly Moreover, as it premarital the determination distribution. the them 10 general as was found before instance, premarital deducted approach itemization numerical direct, increase" specific cattle Court over of fails to take cows as pregnant undisputed total number that the of cows to determine cows, that the the same also must the time of carrying at carried by the the from increase marriage. By increased during calves, for Marla by the would be Court's a mere intent increase" The next the judgment cattle which While her Marla seeks to the was determined of herd of half which of calves the awarded we cannot conclude to Marla from 31 to reflect the District to Marla should receive Marla sought to omission the "half 42 of the via her from bulls to ensure Court that regard the determined is not be a marital findings share such of marital number a revision to the assets. clear, to the the heifers be added particularly addition While 11 her were regarding asset. of must she receives to be a substantive Court's cattle 1995 and herd in in appears certain and description born this of "correct" number District argument to the that order the District that the 22 premarital "one basis, awarded parties' marriage, number correction mistake" calves in calves which arrive herd. motion 1994, of by the being to the court's On that order by the during were properly during be reduced precise cows marriage in 84 calves was 64 22 calves the calves the is number She contends in calves the Court. "clerical postjudgment of under specifying the of the mathematical in in judgment. That the time 62 calves those the of must 31 District increasing born to approach. to Marla that of marriage calves Thus, number number parties' the the at marriage entitled increase of calculation, the the marriage. total the that true cows an increase was the the in during be premarital can be deducted at increase what judgment of or cattle may have been appropriate under not be accomplished Marla also of Court certain under sought to sold a judgment Court's Marla's findings judgment of entered further proceeds inventoried proceeds request the Court found that findings Rule 60(a), Marla's additional M.R.Civ.P., judgment proceeds or and, she was $4,018.22. She regard. of both the District the cattle her motion and did not "one half Court's to an equitable increase" finding Marla's with to that prior of distribution time. marital of $2,678.71. sale proceeds and judgment final scrutiny related its approach, in this The District of cattle was the sum certain for amount, on as of November 27, 1995; the court of the from the sale District increase" that clearly taken 1995 were $8,036.44 establishes the increase" the total the regarding in math. or to which in proceedings seek a mere correction not make a "one half to Marla, "corrected" thereon approach included that half mistake" inventory the math is correct, after of the livestock court of a "clerical livestock in May and June of "one half could as her share of the proceeds the the it motion. to the $2,678.71 According 1996. to have the judgment While its 31, before and which court's entitled of regard procedure, M.R.Civ.P., correction with sold 1995, cattle the of civil found she was entitled January from the rule a Rule 60(a), error cattle November 27, dated via requested mere mathematical District some other which sought could not share On that regard did to the Rather, of the basis, a substantive the sale Marla's change in be accomplished via motion. request for correction 12 of a "clerical mistake" a in the District 1996 31, Court's judgment January relates 1996, and an appraisal which purport to included date these of the cattle, show or judgment Marla's record in As clerical mistake the motion is after the 60 days to is either Rule determining that to her motion. concluding that We hold Marla's the in District the for not Court's reopen by to and the have findings "correct." relitigate January 31, 1996, correction motion clerical not applying the was not errors. subject Rule makes of a 59(g), a Rule Such a to deemed denial or Rule on appeal from 60(c), the was deemed denied motion motion could sought to 59(d), Marla that they M.R.Civ.P. postjudgment erred regarding was not motion argument Court the proceedings correct postjudgment 14, established postjudgment The sole District been purportedly 60(a), M.R.Civ.P. the have the request February motion concluded motion her should judgment, Marla's under 1996, cattle the regard that only 27, time Rule M.R.CiV.P., 60 (a), February and the this January dated Marla's motion its dated herd of and slips after as under We conclude weight Since already such, findings additional at the matters judgment. that Marla's request 1996 cattle findings which substantive the documents of calf assets. court's been matters to of as marital 19, order is that the deemed denial time limits District Court not err was deemed denied did by operation in of law. Did the District compelling Marla judgment? As set forth Court err in granting to execute a partial above, Theodore sought 13 Theodore's satisfaction an order motion of compelling Marla to execute granted a partial satisfaction Theodore's Marla's argument succeeded in Assuming her that denied" motion in the this on have that she satisfaction of was District concluded not Court deemed denied address this granting did Affirmed. the here District that the to amount in the however, 60(a), further be motion in determining that law. and we affirm the case. inadequate a set and, partial awarded. postjudgment and her that the motion was we need a result, District "deemed of money Marla's M.R.Civ.P., As this execute of err operation that in having Court's previously not Court on her amount required not Theodore's issue is Rule issue first will above, a by entirely judgment judgment motion hinges Court's therefore, We have vacated The District appeals. the she argues District judgment. regard position determination, forth and Marla in we will of not Court's motion. 0 order
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.
