In Re the Marriage of Noble

No. 04-260
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 113IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
LINDA L. NOBLE,
Petitioner and Respondent,
and
MICHAEL C. NOBLE,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADV 91-1270
The Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Michael C. Noble, pro se, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Linda L. Noble, pro se, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 6, 2004
Decided: May 5, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Michael Noble (Michael) appeals an order of the District Court for the First Judicial
District, Lewis and Clark County, modifying child support. We remand.
¶2 We address the following issue on appeal: Whether the District Court abused its
discretion in modifying child support and ordering Michael to pay Linda Noble (Linda)
$260.00 per month in support for their 17-year-old daughter.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶3 Michael and Linda were married in May 1975, in Inglewood, California. They have
four children. The parties’ marriage was dissolved on April 22, 1992, at which time all of
the children were still minors. Incorporated into the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage was
the Custody, Support and Property Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties on the
same day.
¶4 Between the April 22, 1992 decree and the March 17, 2004 order modifying child
support that is the subject of this appeal, there were a number of District Court actions filed
by the parties relating to child support. Most of the actions related to the emancipation of
three of the parties four children as they graduated from high school. At the time this
particular action commenced, Michael was paying child support only for the parties’
youngest daughter.
¶5 On December 17, 2003, Michael filed with the District Court his pro se Motion for
Modification of child support based on the fact that he would be retiring from his position
with the State of Montana in January 2004, and his income would be substantially reduced.
2
He also requested that his ex-wife, Linda, be required to provide health insurance for their
children through her employment since the cost to continue health insurance with the State
of Montana would be very expensive once he retired.
¶6 The District Court ordered the parties to complete financial affidavits and submit them
to the court along with copies of their most recent pay stubs and their 2002 federal income
tax returns. On March 17, 2004, the court issued its Child Support Order wherein it
determined that Michael owed Linda $260.00 per month in child support. The court also
ordered that both parties provide health insurance for their youngest daughter and that the
daughter’s uninsured health-related expenses should be paid 30 percent by Linda and 70
percent by Michael. In addition, the court ordered that Linda may claim their daughter for
income tax purposes. Accompanying the court’s order were the completed Child Support
Guidelines’ worksheets wherein the court calculated Linda’s gross income as $35,559.00 and
Michael’s as $51,000.00. The court’s order was not supported by any findings of fact or
conclusions of law.
¶7 Michael subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that the District
Court had incorrectly calculated his income at $51,000.00 when the financial information
he submitted to the court clearly shows that his retirement income is only $29,844.00.
Michael also objected to the court granting Linda the right to claim their daughter on her
income taxes when previous orders of the court required them to alternate years and it was
Michael’s turn to claim her.
3
¶8 The District Court denied Michael’s motion for reconsideration on April 13, 2004.
Michael appeals. Both parties appear pro se on appeal.
Discussion
¶9 Whether the District Court abused its discretion in modifying child support and
ordering Michael to pay Linda $260.00 per month in support for their 17-year-old daughter.
¶10 Michael argues that the District Court erred when it used the wrong retirement income
for him; when it listed his second job income even though he has another family; when it
ignored the fact that both Michael and Linda carry health insurance for their daughter; and
when the court credited Linda for health insurance in an amount that is four times what she
actually pays. Michael also argues that the District Court erred in allowing Linda to claim
their daughter as a deduction on her tax returns.
¶11 Linda argues on appeal that the District Court properly imputed Michael’s income
since he elected to retire at the age of 57 and he is, therefore, underemployed. Linda points
out that she has complied with the District Court’s order to provide health insurance for their
daughter and she contends that it is unacceptable for Michael to now attempt to claim a child
support credit for also providing health insurance. Linda also contends that the District
Court correctly determined that their daughter’s uninsured health-related expenses should
be paid 30 percent by Linda and 70 percent by Michael and that Linda should be allowed to
claim their daughter for tax purposes.
¶12 We review a district court’s award of child support to determine whether the district
court abused its discretion. In re Marriage of Helzer, 2004 MT 352, ¶ 20, 324 Mont. 371,
4
¶ 20, 102 P.3d 1263, ¶ 20 (citing In re Marriage of Bee, 2002 MT 49, ¶ 19, 309 Mont. 34,
¶ 19, 43 P.3d 903, ¶ 19). To conclude a district court abused its discretion in child support
calculations, we must determine whether the district court acted arbitrarily without
employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in
substantial injustice. Helzer, ¶ 20 (citing In re Marriage of Kovarik, 1998 MT 33, ¶ 21, 287
Mont. 350, ¶ 21, 954 P.2d 1147, ¶ 21).
¶13 In this case, we are unable to determine whether the District Court acted arbitrarily
or exceeded the bounds of reason because the court did not make any factual findings
explaining how it calculated the award of $260.00 per month in child support to Linda. We
have previously stated that “[a] district court is required to make specific findings in writing
to explain its calculation of child support and any deviation from the guidelines.” In re
Marriage of Stufft (1997), 286 Mont. 239, 250, 950 P.2d 1373, 1379-80 (citing In re
Marriage of Brandon (1995), 271 Mont. 149, 152, 894 P.2d 951, 953).
¶14 Accordingly, we remand this case to the District Court for findings which would
explain how the court calculated its award of child support taking into account the issues
Michael raises regarding calculation of his income and health insurance coverage for the
parties’ minor daughter.
¶15 Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
5
We Concur:
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
6