Title: SUPPORT OF ROCKMAN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 85-162 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 I N RE THE SUPPORT OF ROCKPIAN. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and for the C o u n t y of C a s c a d e , T h e H o n o r a b l e Joel G. R o t h , Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : H a r t e l i u s & F e r g u s o n ; C h a n n i n g J. H a r t e l i u s , G r e a t Falls, M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : C h u r c h , H a r r i s , Johnson & W i l l i a m s ; D o n a l d A. L a B a r , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana - - S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : N a y 3 0 , 1985 D e c i d e d : S e p - k e m b e r 5 , 1 9 85 SEP S -- 1 9 8 5 F i l e d : 'cc C l e r k Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. Bryce L. Rockman (father) and Connie J. Rockman (mother) each appeals an order of the Cascade County District Court which reduced father's monthly obligation of child support. We affirm. The issues are: 1. Did the District Court err in reducing the father's child support obligation? 2. Did the District Court err in failing to award attorney's fees and costs to appellant? 3. Did the District Court err in setting the monthly support obligation at $175 per child for a total of $525? 4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in not making the modification effective April 17, 1984, the date the father filed his motion to reduce his child support payments? 5. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in failing to give credit of $3,840 against delinquent child support payments of $11,527? 6. Did the District Court err in allowing the father visitation every other Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. until the children's bedtime? The parents were married in 1970. Their marriage was dissolved in 1982. Mother received custody of the couples' three children, and father was ordered to make support pay- ments of $330 per month for each child. Father moved to modify his child support obligation based upon a change of circumstances. On November 19, 1984, the District Court ordered the father's child support obliga- tion reduced to $175 per month for each child. In addition, the court modified the visitation rights of the father and ordered each party to bear his/her own attorney's fees and costs. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n r e d u c i n g the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ? The D i s t r i c t Court p u r s u a n t t o S 40-4-208 ( 2 ) ( b ) (i) , MCA, may modify a c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n "upon a showing o f changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g a s t o make t h e [ o r i g i n a l o r p r e v i o u s ] t e r m s unconscionable. " Mother contends t h e e v i d e n c ~ p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g d i d n o t show a change of c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g a s t o r e n d e r t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e unconscionable. T h i s Court w i l l n o t reverse t h e D i s t r i c t Court on t h e i s s u e o f m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d s u p p o r t u n l e s s t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . Rule 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : F i n d i n g s o f f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and due r e g a r d s h a l l b e given t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s . F i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i f supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence: T h i s C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n . . . i s n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment i n p l a c e o f t h e trier o f f a c t s b u t r a t h e r it i s "confined t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e is substan- t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o s u p p o r t " t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. Although c o n f l i c t s may e x i s t i n t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d , it i s t h e d u t y and f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge t o r e s o l v e such c o n f l i c t s . H i s f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l where t h e y a r e based on s u b s t a n t i a 1 though c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. Olson v. Westfork P r o p e r t i e s , I n c . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 171 Mont. 154, 157, 557 P.2d 821, 823 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . The D i s t r i c t Court i n i t s second c o n c l u s i o n o f law h e l d : The f a v o r a b l e change i n economic circum- s t a n c e s f o r . . . [mother] and t h e unfa- v o r a b l e change i n economic c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f . . . [ f a t h e r ] , b o t h o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h e d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n h e r e i n a r e s o s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g a s o f t h e p r e s e n t t i m e a s t o make t h e t e r m s o f t h e c h i l d support d e c r e e o f August 19, 1982 unconscionable pursuant t o s e c t i o n 40-4-208 (2) (b) (i) MCA. The record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mother h a s i n h e r i t e d a substan- t i a l sum o f money, r e c e i v e s p e r i o d i c income from t h e family c o r p o r a t i o n , and now owns a home, d e b t f r e e . The f a t h e r ' s income has changed from a maximum o f $3,800 a month t o a monthly average o f $2,315 f o r June through September 1984. W e conclude t h e record c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f a sub- s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g change o f circumstances r e n d e r i n g t h e o r i g i n a l decree unconscionable. The f i n d i n g s a r e n o t c l e a r l y erroneous. W e a f f i r m t h e District C o u r t ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n f a i l i n g t o award a t t o r - n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s t o a p p e l l a n t ? Section 40-4-110, MCA, governs t h e awarding o f a t t o r - n e y ' s f e e s . The c o u r t from t i m e t o t i m e , a f t e r con- s i d e r i n g t h e f i n a n c i a l rpsources o f both p a r t i e s , may o r d e r a p a r t y t o pay a reasonable amount o r t h e c o s t t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y o f maintaining o r defending any proceeding under c h a p t e r s 1 and 4 o f t h i s t i t l e and f o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , including sums f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s ren- dered and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h e commencement o f t h e proceeding o r a f t e r e n t r y o f judgment. The c o u r t may o r d e r t h a t t h e amount be paid d i r e c t l y t o t h e a t t o r n e y , who may enforce t h e o r d e r i n h i s name. This Court has i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e awarding o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s under t h i s s t a t u t e i s n o t mandatory. See In re t h e Marriage o f Carlson (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 693 P.2d 496, 4 1 St.Rep. 2419. The c o u r t was w e l l appraised o f t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s o f b o t h p a r e n t s . W e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n d i r e c t i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n s e t t i n g t h e monthly sup- p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t $175 p e r c h i l d f o r a t o t a l o f $525? F a t h e r contends t h a t t h e c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n should have been reduced t o approximately $125 p e r month f o r each c h i l d . F a t h e r argues t h a t because t h e house and c a r a r e d e b t free t o t h e mother, h i s support o b l i g a t i o n should be based only on t h e out-of-pocket expenses o f t h e mother. This l o g i c is erroneous. The c o u r t need n o t l i m i t i t s c a l c u l a t i o n o f a c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n t o a percentage o f out-of-pocket expenses. A s s t a t e d , t h e standard of review i s whether t h e r e j.s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s . The record c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l . evidence b e a r i n g on t h e amount needed by t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e amount husband can pay. W e a f f i r m t h e award. IV. Did t h e District Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t making t h e modification e f f e c t i v e A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 8 4 , t h e d a t e t h e f a t h e r f i l e d h i s motion t o reduce h i s c h i l d support payments? S e c t i o n 40-4-208 ( I ) , MCA, governs t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of modification. (1 Except a s otherwise provided i n 40-4-201 ( 6 ) , a d e c r e e may be modified by t h e c o u r t a s t o . . . support o n l y a s t o i n s t a l l m e n t s a c c r u i n g subsequent t o t h e motion f o r modification. The s t a t u t e l e a v e s t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court. F a t h e r contends t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e should be r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e t h e o r i g i n a l motion was f i l e d . The record does n o t c o n t a i n s u b s t a n t i a l evidence which would r e q u i r e a change i n t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e . W e a f f i r m t h e District Court. v. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o g i v e c r e d i t o f $3,840 a g a i n s t d e l i n q u e n t c h i l d s u p p o r t payments o f $11,527? F a t h e r r e q u e s t s an o f f s e t i n t h e amount o f $3,840. Pursuant t o t h e o r i g i n a l d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e , f a t h e r was ordered t o sell a home i n Alabama and t u r n t h e n e t s a l e proceeds over t o t h e mother. In o r d e r t o consummate t h e s a l e , it was necessary f o r e i t h e r t h e f a t h e r o r mother t o supplement t h e p u r c h a s e r s ' house payments with $160 p e r month f o r two y e a r s , a t o t a l o f $3,840. The f a t h e r v o l u n t a r i l y supplemented t h e house payments. F a t h e r contends h i s gener- o s i t y should o f f s e t a p a r t o f t h e d e l i n q u e n t c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n . I n deciding whether an o f f s e t should be p e r m i t t e d , t h i s Court looks f i r s t t o whether both p a r t i e s agreed t h e payment would o f f s e t t h e c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n . I n re t h e Mar- r i a g e o f Good (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 691 P.2d 1337, 1339, 4 1 St.Rep. 2109, 2111. The record does n o t c o n t a i n evidence t h a t t h e f a t h e r and mother agreed t o o f f s e t t h e f a t h e r ' s g e n e r o s i t y a g a i n s t t h e c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n . W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court' s d e n i a l o f an o f f s e t . VI . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n allowing t h e f a t h e r visi- t a t i o n every o t h e r Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. u n t i l t h e c h i l - dren ' s bedtime? Finding o f f a c t number 4 i n d i c a t e s t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t - ed t o an e x t e n s i v e v i s i t a t i o n agreement. Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e agreement covered summer v a c a t i o n , school h o l i d a y s i n - c l u d i n g Thanksgiving and Christmas, c h i l d r e n ' s b i r t h d a y s , F a t h e r ' s Day, Mother's Day, Fourth o f J u l y , Labor Day and Halloween. In a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t awarded t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a - t i o n every o t h e r Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e n ' s bedtime. W e conclude t h e record c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i - b l e evidence t o support t h e District C o u r t ' s award of v i s i t a - t i o n r i g h t s . W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W e concur: /