In Re the Marriage of Smith , 50 State Rptr. 1151 ( 1993 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    NO. 93-208
    IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
    ROBERT ALTON SMITH,
    Petitioner and Respondent,
    I
    and                                          )    O P I N I O N
    A N D
    LORI MOFFATT SMITH,                                      O R D E R
    Respondent and Appellant.
    Appellant, Lori Moffatt Smith (Lori), filed a Notice of Appeal
    on March 24, 1993.    Respondent, Robert A. Smith (Robert), filed his
    Motion to Dismiss Appeal on July 15, 1993.            The bases for this
    motion are that the appeal was taken from interlocutory rulings and
    that Lori's motion for a change of venue was not timely filed.
    Also on July 15, 1993, Lori filed, pro se, her Motion for
    Extension and    Supporting     Memorandum,   requesting a    sixty day
    extension in which to file her initial brief on appeal. We
    previously extended the original deadline for filing that brief by
    forty-five days on May 27, 1993.      By order dated July 16, 1993, we
    granted Lori's motion and gave her until September 20, 1993, in
    which to file her brief.
    On July 27,      1993,   Lori filed a Motion for Extension and
    Memorandum requesting an additional ten days to file a response to
    Robert's Motion to Dismiss Appeal.       On July 27, 1993, we granted
    that notion and ordered Lori to file a response to Robert's notion
    by August 10, 1993.
    On August 10, 1993, Lori filed her response to Robert's notion
    and stated that the issues raised in his motion were the ones to be
    addressed in her initial brief, which we previously ordered to be
    filed by September 20, 1993.     Lori did not respond to the merits of
    Robert's Motion to Dismiss Appeal.      Along with her August 10, 1993,
    response, Lori filed a Motion to Defer Response, Motion for Joinder
    of William Boggs, Esq., and Supporting Memorandum.       On August 17,
    1993, we granted Lori's Motion to Defer Response and ordered Lori
    to file her initial brief by September 20, 1993, and further
    ordered Lori to respond to the merits and issues raised in Robert's
    Motion to Dismiss Appeal.   We denied Lori's Motion to Join William
    Boggs.
    Lori has now filed her initial brief on appeal and, as we
    stated in our August 17, 1993, order, we are prepared to rule on
    Robert's Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
    This dissolution proceeding was commenced in the Eighth
    Judicial District Court, Cascade County, Montana, in 1985.         Over
    the years,   the District Court has presided over a number of
    proceedings related to child custody.         On June 5, 1991, Robert
    filed a Motion for Contempt and Motion to Modify Custody in the
    District Court, asserting that Lori was frustrating Robert in his
    attempts to exercise visitation and seeking a change of the child's
    primary residential custodian.     Various motions and other documents
    2
    were filed by the parties.   In the fall of 1991, after the case had
    been set for trial, Lori sought an order from the District Court
    restraining Robert from exercising visitation, on the grounds that
    Robert allegedly sexually abused the child.        (This was later
    acknowledged by the child to be untrue.)        The District Court
    refused to stay visitation:     Lori then sought assistance from
    Missoula County, and the Fourth Judicial District Court ordered the
    issuance of temporary investigative authority to the Department of
    Family Services.
    Initiation of the Missoula County proceedings caused the
    Eighth Judicial District Court to defer its proceedings. On
    September 28, 1992, the Fourth Judicial District Court entered its
    Order for Implementation of DFS Treatment Plan.          That order
    specifically stated that the implementation of the treatment plan
    did not prevent either party from pursuing the action pending in
    Cascade County.
    After that order, Robert moved the Eighth Judicial District
    Court to reset his Motion for Custody for trial,          which was
    subsequently set for March 25, 1993.   On March 18, 1993, Lori filed
    a number of motions,   including one to change venue to Missoula
    County.   On March 22, 1993, the District Court denied her motions.
    From the denial of those motions, Lori appealed.
    The Notice of Appeal filed by Lori states that she is
    appealing. from the District Court's order which (1) denied the
    motion to stay proceedings: (2) denied the change of venue: and (3)
    3
    denied the motion for a protective order as to discovery.
    Generally,       interlocutory orders are not appealable.                         See
    Bostwick v. Dep't of Highways (1980), 
    188 Mont. 313
    , 315, 613 P.zd
    997, 998.       The denial of a motion to stay and a motion for a
    protective order are              interlocutory in         nature,       and    are     not
    appealable orders within the scope of Rule 1, M0nt.R.App.P.                             For
    that reason, Lori may not appeal these issues until the District
    Court enters a final judgment.
    As to Lori's claim that the District Court erred in granting
    her request for a change of venue,                    we note that Rule l(b),
    M.R.App.P.     allows an appeal from an order denying a change of
    venue.   State ex rel. Kesterson v. District Court (1980), 
    189 Mont. 20
    ,   22-23,   
    614 P.2d 1050
    , 1051.      However, the request for a change
    of venue must be timely made.            Rule 12(b), Mont.R.Civ.P.,             requires
    that a motion for a change of venue be made within twenty days
    after the response to the pleading is filed.                    Here, the dissolution
    proceeding was commenced in 1985, and Robert's motion for custody
    was filed on June 5,            1991.    The motion to change venue was not
    filed until March 18, 1993. Clearly, Lori's motion to change venue
    was   not timely        made.       In   addition,     Lori has made numerous
    appearances in the Eighth Judicial                   District   Court,    and has not
    challenged      venue     in     that District        Court       at   any     of     these
    appearances, prior to filing her motion for a change of venue.
    For the foregoing reasons,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner/Respondent's Motion
    4
    to   Dismiss   Appeal    should    be   and   is   hereby     GRANTED,     and
    Respondent/Appellant's   appeal    should   be   and   is   hereby   DISMISSED
    WITHOUT   PREJUDICE.
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court
    serve Robert's counsel of record and Lori, pro se, by mail with a
    copy of this Order.
    Dated this                   October, 1993.
    October 5, 1993
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE,
    I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following
    named:
    Lori Moffatt Smith
    P.O. Box 9155
    Missoula, MT 59807
    K. Dale Schwanke
    Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, P.C.
    P.O. Box 2269
    Great Falls. MT 59403.2269
    ED SMITH
    CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
    STATE OF MONTANA
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 93-208

Citation Numbers: 260 Mont. 406, 50 State Rptr. 1151, 860 P.2d 159, 1993 Mont. LEXIS 290

Judges: Turnage, Harrison, Hunt, Gray, Trieweiler, Nelson, Weber

Filed Date: 10/5/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024