Case Title: MARRIAGE OF BARTMESS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-006

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 8 1 - 0 6 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ItIONTANA 1 9 8 1 I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF DENISE L. BARTMESS, P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , BUDDY. G. BARTXESS, R e s p o n d e n t and A p p e l l a n t . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . I n and for t h e C o u n t y of L e w i s & C l a r k , T h e H o n o r a b l e G o r d o n R. B e n n e t t , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : S m a l l , H a t c h & D o u b e k , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : R u s s e l l L a V i g n e , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : May 1, 1 9 8 1 D e c i d e d : July 16, 1 9 8 1 F i l e d : F m 1 6 1981 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court The marriage of Buddy Bartmess, a p p e l l a n t , and Denise Bartmess, respondent, was d i s s o l v e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Lewis and Clark County. Buddy appeals from t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t judge awarding custody of t h e c o u p l e ' s c h i l d t o Denise. The p a r t i e s w e r e married i n May 1978. A daughter was born t o them i n January 1979. Denise p e t i t i o n e d f o r d i s s o l u - t i o n i n A p r i l 1980. Evidentiary hearings w e r e held i n August and October of 1980. The f i n d i n g s , conclusions and decree of d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e District Court w e r e f i l e d on December 2, 1980. Denise was awarded custody of t h e c o u p l e ' s daughter. Buddy w a s ordered t o pay c h i l d support i n t h e amount of $100 p e r month. On December 4 , 1980, a p p e l l a n t Buddy made a motion t o a l t e r t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law. A hearing on t h e motion was held on December 12. Because t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t i s s u e amended f i n d i n g s and conclusions, a p p e l l a n t f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of appeal on January 7 , 1981. On January 20, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d i t s amended f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclu- s i o n s of law and decree and dated them, nunc pro tunc, December 12, 1980. Appellant r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Did t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court err by n o t appointing counsel t o r e p r e s e n t t h e c o u p l e ' s daughter; 2. Did t h e evidence support t h e award of custody t o t h e mother; and 3 . Were t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions of t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c o u r t ' s de- c i s i o n ? The findings and conclusions contained i n t h e decree f i l e d December 2 were s i l e n t on the question of appointment of counsel f o r t h e minor c h i l d . The D i s t r i c t Court should have made a finding on t h i s question. Matter of Guardianship of G u l l e t t e (1977), 173 Mont. 132, 140, 566 P.2d 396, 400. Also t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on the award of custody contained only the c h i l d ' s name and age and the conclusory statement t h a t it would be i n the c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t t h a t she be placed i n the permanent c a r e , custody and c o n t r o l of her mother. The f i n d i n g s on custody d i d not record the e s s e n t i a l and determining f a c t s upon which t h e District Court r e s t e d i t s conclusion on t h e custody i s s u e . Therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t Court's judgment a s t o custody lacked support. Marriage of Barron (1978), 177 Mont. 161, 580 P.2d 936. The D i s t r i c t Court attempted t o remedy t h e d e f e c t s i n t h e f i n d i n g s by i s s u i n g i t s amended findings, conclusions and decree. However, the f i l i n g of t h e n o t i c e of appeal divested the D i s t r i c t Court of j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e order and judgment from which t h e the appeal was taken. McCormick v. McCormick (1975), 168 Mont. 136, 541 P.2d 765. A t r i a l c o u r t cannot e n t e r supplemental f i n d i n g s a f t e r a n o t i c e of appeal has been f i l e d . Churchhill v. Holly Sugar Corp. Mont. (1981) I - -1 I - P. 2d - I - , 38 St.Rep. 860, 862. I n t h e absence of adequate findings, w e cannot review t h e D i s t r i c t Court's f a i l u r e t o appoint counsel o r t h e award of custody. The decree of December 2, 1 9 8 0 , i s vacated and t h e cause i s remanded f o r t h e e n t r y of new findings, conclu- s i o n s and decree. We cqncur: Justices 1