Marriage of McCurdy ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                              No. 94-55-i
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    1995
    IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
    ROBERT E. McCURDY,
    Petitioner, Counter-
    Respondent and Appellant,
    and
    CONTANA S. McCURDY,                              ta &gp;.;&
    a&F?y OF SUPR&?/jE J&EIR'II
    sl f/&i cw hlilB!$fp~jh
    Respondent, Counter-
    Petitioner and Respondent.
    APPEAL FROM:    District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
    In and for the County of Cascade,
    The Honorable John M. McCarvel, Judge presiding.
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    K. Dale Schwanke, Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett
    and Weaver, P.C., Great Falls, Montana
    For Respondent:
    M. Gene Allison, Law Offices of Joan Cook,
    Great Falls, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs:          August 10, 1995
    Decided:         September 21; 1995
    Filed:
    Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c),          Montana Supreme Court
    1995 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be
    cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public
    document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its
    result to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Publishing
    Company.
    Robert McCurdy     appeals the decision of the Eighth Judicial
    District Court, Cascade County, awarding Robert and Contana McCurdy
    joint custody of their preschool son and awarding Contana $2500 in
    attorney fees.        We affirm.
    We find the following issues dispositive on appeal:
    1.     Did the District Court err in awarding the McCurdys joint
    custody of Collin with Contana being the primary residential
    custodian?
    2.     Did the District Court err in awarding Contana attorney
    fees?
    Robert and Contana were married on August 29, 1992.               Their
    son, Collin, had been born on January 2,          1992. After two years of
    marriage, Contana took Collin and left Robert.              Robert    petitioned
    the District Court for dissolution of their marriage on January 14,
    1994.        Robert received temporary custody of Collin following their
    separation until April 12, 1994, at which time the court ordered
    temporary joint custody to Robert and Contana.
    On July 29, 1994,      the   District   Court   heard   the   respective
    parties'       arguments   concerning their desire to have custody of
    2
    Collin.     Robert sought sole custody of Collin, while Contana sought
    joint     custody but wanted to be Collin's primary residential
    custodian in order to maintain eligibility for subsidized housing.
    Following trial,        the court entered its findings of fact, conclu-
    sions of law and order granting the parties joint custody with
    Contana being the primary residential custodian.           The court also
    awarded Contana attorney fees.        Robert appeals the decision of the
    District Court.
    Issue 1
    Did the District Court err in awarding the McCurdys joint
    custody     of Collin with Contana being the primary residential
    custodian?
    Robert argues that the District Court's findings concerning
    the "best        interest" of Collin are insufficiently comprehensive to
    provide a basis for a decision.           In Re the Marriage of Nikolaisen
    (199X),    
    257 Mont. 1
    ,     847 P.Zd 287.     Robert also argues that the
    court's findings are clearly erroneous because they are not
    supported by substantial credible evidence.          In Re the Marriage of
    Johnson (1994), 
    266 Mont. 158
    , 
    879 P.2d 689
    .
    This Court has held that a district court need not make
    specific findings addressing every "best interest" factor set forth
    in § 40-4-212, MCA.          In Re the Marriage of Arrotta (1990), 
    244 Mont. 508
    ,    
    797 P.2d 940
    .    This Court has also recognized the
    statutory presumption found in 5 40-4-224, MCA, that joint custody
    is generally in the child's best interest.           In Re the Marriage of
    Syljuberget (19881, 
    234 Mont. 178
    , 
    763 P.2d 323
    .
    3
    After reviewing the record we conclude that the court's
    findings of fact are sufficiently comprehensive and are supported
    by substantial credible evidence.
    Issue 2
    Did the District Court err in awarding Contana attorney fees?
    Attorney fees in a dissolution action are governed by § 40-4-
    110, MCA, which states:
    The court from time to time, after considering the
    financial resources of both parties, may order a party to
    pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party
    of maintaining or defending any proceeding under chapters
    1 and 4 of this title and for attorney's fees . . .
    We review an award of attorney fees to determine if the court
    abused its discretion.        In Re the Marriage of Brownell (1993), 
    263 Mont. 78
    , 
    865 P.2d 307
    .
    After   reviewing   the   record,   we conclude that the District
    Court     sufficiently      considered the financial resources of the
    parties and that both parties were provided with sufficient notice
    of the attorney fees issue.          We conclude that the District Court
    did not abuse its discretion in awarding Contana attorney fees.
    AFFIRMED.
    Chief Justice
    4
    1\
    ---_._-.---