McConnell v. Dempster ( 1982 )


Menu:
  •                                                No.    82-184
    I N T E SUPREME COUKT O THE STATE O F MONTANA
    H                 F
    1982
    EARL I?.   McCONNELL,
    P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
    VS.
    N I N A R. DEWSTER, f o r m e r l y
    known as N I N A R. McCONNELL,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    Appeal from:         D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l . D i s t r i c t ,
    I n and f o r t h e County o f G a l l a t i n
    Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
    Counsel o f Record:
    For P l a i n t i f f :
    Berg, C o i l ,     S t o k e s & T o l l e f s e n ; Michael C .        C o i l , Bozeman,
    Montana
    For Defendant:
    M o r r o w , S e d i v y , Olson    & Eck;      Edmund P .        S e d i v y , Bozeman,
    Montana
    S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s :   August 1 9 , 1982
    Decided:         September 1 0 , 1982
    4.   Determine there is a clear abuse of the discretion
    of the District Court.
    5.   Decide that there was an arbitrary exercise of
    discretion without the employment of conscientious judgment.
    6.   Hold that child support payments may only be modified
    upon a showing that there are changes in the situation of the
    child so substantial and continuous as to make the original
    child support payments unconscionable.
    However, the primary and only issue we need to address
    is whether the District Court's judgment of May 21, 1981, is
    supported by substantial credible evidence.
    On review, this Court must determine whether there is
    sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the findings of
    the District Court.   Only when the findings of the District
    Court are clearly erroneous will they be set aside.        Rule
    52(a), M.R.Civ.P.; Baer v. Baer (1982), - I l nt
    Yo         . -, 
    647 P.2d 835
    , 39 St.Rep. 1178.
    The record shows that the father proposed the establishment
    of a trust for the benefit of the child; the mother's expense
    to support the child is between $210 and $260 per month; the
    mother is providing housing and transp~rtationfor the child
    and the father of the child is able to provide $200 per month
    for the child's support and $100 per month in trust for the
    child's future.   In this case, the mother is supplying
    substantial support by providing housing and transportation.
    There is substantial credible evidence in the record
    to affirm the judgment of the District Court.        Therefore,
    the determination of the father's child support obligation
    is not clearly erroneous.    Rule 52 (a), M. R. Civ. P .
    Affirmed.
    Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the
    Court.
    Appeal by husband Earl P. McConnell from a judgment
    against him in the District Court, Eighteenth Judicial
    District, Gallatin County.   He was ordered to pay to Nina R.
    Dempster, wife and respondent $200.00 per month child support
    for their minor son and $100.00 per month to a trust established
    for the child.   We affirm the ~istrictCourt.
    This petition for modification of a child support
    provision by the mother against the father on behalf of the
    minor child, Clinton Earl McConnell, was previously before
    this Court.   In Dempster v. McConnell (1981), - Mont   .-    I
    
    622 P.2d 680
    , 38 St.Rep. 121, the appeal was remanded to the
    District Court for entry of consistent findings and con-
    clusions in conformity with the opinion of this Court.
    A motion to enter judgment on remittitur was made and
    argued on May 11, 1981.    The District Court's judgment on
    remittitur, entered May 21, 1981, stated:
    "That Plaintiff shall pay the sum of Two Hundred
    Dollars ($200.00) per month, plus medical and
    dental bills of Clinton Earl NcConnell, beginning
    July 1, 1981; that an additional One Hundred
    Dollars ($100.00) shall be paid into a trust fund
    established in the name of Clinton Earl McConnell,
    said trust to be for the boy's exclusive use. The
    Petitioner and Respondent shall be co-Trustees charged
    with the care and accounting of said trust fund."
    The father appeals this order and asks this Court to:
    1.   Decide whether there is substantial credible
    evidence to support the findings and conclusions.
    2.   Overturn the findings and conclusions if there is
    a clear preponderance of evidence against them.
    3.   Consider the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the prevailing party.
    We Concur:
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 82-184

Judges: Sheehy, Haswell, Daly, Harrison, Morrison

Filed Date: 9/10/1982

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/10/2024