Marriage of Xu ( 2004 )

No. 03-527
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2004 MT 218N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
XIN XU,
Petitioner and Appellant,
and
PIN-XIAN XU,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. CDR 2002-455,
Honorable Kenneth R. Neill, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Xin Xu, pro se, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Christopher J. Gillette, Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, P.C.,
Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 14, 2004
Decided: August 17, 2004
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as
a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,
Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to
West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
¶2 Xin Xu (Xin), pro se, appeals the order dated July 15, 2003, in the Eighth Judicial
District Court, Cascade County, dissolving his marriage to Pin-Xian Xu (Pin). We affirm
the order.
¶3 Xin raises ten issues on appeal. However, Xin cites no authority whatsoever for
issues 2 through 8 and 10. Therefore, we will not consider those issues. See Rule 23(a)(4),
M.R.App.P.; In re Marriage of Clark, 2003 MT 168, ¶ 25, 316 Mont. 327, ¶ 25, 71 P.3d
1228, ¶ 25. In Issue 1, Xin accuses Pin of perjury, an issue he did not raise at trial. The
Supreme Court generally will not address an issue raised for the first time on appeal because
a district court cannot be placed in error for something which it never had the opportunity
to decide. In re Marriage of Gerhart, 2003 MT 292, ¶ 31, 318 Mont. 94, ¶ 31, 78 P.3d 1219,
¶ 31. In his remaining issue, Xin argues that the trial court erred in calculating the child
support payments Xin is to pay. However, Xin stipulated at trial to the child support
calculation, failing to preserve this issue for appeal and leaving him no cause to complain to
this Court. “We will not put a trial court in error on an issue raised by a party on appeal
2
where it was not given the opportunity to address the issue.” State v. Root, 1999 MT 203,
¶ 17, 296 Mont. 1, ¶ 17, 987 P.2d 1140, ¶ 17.
¶4 Pin raises one issue on cross-appeal: Should this Court award Pin attorney fees for
costs incurred in responding to this appeal? Though Xin’s arguments fail, Pin cites to no
authority for her request for fees, and further, we do not believe this is a case where an award
of attorney fees is appropriate.
¶5 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
3