Marriage of Jardine and Schwartz , 2016 MT 321N ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                              12/06/2016
    DA 16-0332
    Case Number: DA 16-0332
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    2016 MT 321N
    IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
    JULIA M. JARDINE,
    f/k/a JULIA M. SCHWARTZ,
    Petitioner and Appellee,
    and
    WESLEY A. SCHWARTZ,
    Respondent and Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM:            District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 11-0029
    Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Wesley A. Schwartz (Self-Represented), Los Angeles, California
    For Appellee:
    Kevin T. Sweeney, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: November 10, 2016
    Decided: December 6, 2016
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
    Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
    serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
    Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
    Reports.
    ¶2     Wesley Schwartz appeals from the District Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions
    of Law and Order filed on May 23, 2016. We affirm.
    ¶3     Schwartz and Julia Jardine were married in 2005 and divorced in 2013. They have
    three children who live with Jardine, and the divorce decree provides a parenting plan
    and support requirements.      We previously reversed Jardine’s attempt to terminate
    Schwartz’s parental rights and have her father adopt the children. In the Matter of the
    Adoption of AMS, MAS and AWS, 
    2016 MT 22
    , 
    382 Mont. 145
    , 
    364 P.3d 1261
    .
    ¶4     The present appeal arises from Schwartz’s motions to reduce his child support
    obligation and to modify the parenting plan to allow him unsupervised contact with the
    children. The District Court set these motions for hearing and denied Schwartz’s motion
    that he be allowed to participate by telephone. Schwartz claimed that he could not afford
    to travel to Montana from his home in California. The District Court denied that motion
    and held the hearing on the Schwartz motions. Several witnesses testified but Schwartz
    did not appear.
    2
    ¶5     After the hearing the District Court considered the testimony along with materials
    submitted by Schwartz, and in addition the testimony and exhibits considered in the
    previous hearing. The District Court found that the evidence showed that there were no
    grounds for changing the child support obligation or the conditions for visitation. The
    District Court also found that Schwartz “continues to make sworn declarations to the
    Court that are utterly untrue.” The District Court found that Schwartz was not a poor
    student as he claimed, but “lives a comfortable lifestyle in affluent West Los Angeles,
    California” where he lives with and is supported by his attorney. The District Court
    found that the testimony of the therapist who works with the children supports continuing
    the supervision requirements for Schwartz’s contact with the children.
    ¶6     Schwartz appeals from the order denying his motion to appear telephonically, and
    from the denial of his motions to amend the prior orders regarding visitation and child
    support. He contends that denial of each of these motions was an abuse of discretion.
    ¶7     Schwartz has not demonstrated that the District Court abused its discretion in
    denying him leave to participate in the hearing by telephone or in denying his motions to
    modify prior court orders. Moreover, the District Court’s findings of fact are based upon
    substantial evidence in the record and its conclusions of law are correct.
    ¶8     We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
    our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
    of the Court, the District Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence
    and the legal issues are controlled by settled law.
    ¶9     Affirmed.
    3
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    We Concur:
    /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
    /S/ LAURIE McKINNON
    /S/ BETH BAKER
    /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-0332

Citation Numbers: 2016 MT 321N

Filed Date: 12/6/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2017