30. 82-418 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ?lONTkNA 

1983 

IZd RC TI-IE MARRIAGE OF 

CARL LYNN JOHNSON, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

TRUDY LYNN JOHNSON, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable 

Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Ralph T. Randono, Great Falls, Flontana 

For Respondent: 

Bartelius & Assoc.; Cameron Ferguson, Great Falls, 

Flontana 

Submitted on Briefs: May 26, 1983 

Decided: August 4, 1983 

Filed: 

AUG 4 4983 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Carl Lynn Johnson, husband, appeals from an order issued 

by the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

Cascade County, granting Trudy Lynn Johnson, wife, an 

increase in child support payments. We affirm. 

The parties were divorced on February 23, 1977. The 

dissolution decree incorporated a settlement agreement which 

provides that wife receive custody of the parties' then 

three-year-old son, and that husband pay $125 per month for 

child support. 

On May 27, 1982, wife filed a motion in the District 

Court requesting that husband be required to pay all 

delinquent child support payments and also requesting an 

increase in child support payments from $125 per month to 

$200 per month. 

A hearing was held on July 7, 1982. Wife testified that 

at the time of the divorce, she was working three days a week 

at approximately $3 per hour. She now works full time as a 

restaurant hostess and earns approximately $440 per month. 

Wife compared her income, excluding child support, to her 

monthly expenses, which amounted to over $700. She also 

testified that the expenses for raising Steven, the parties' 

eight-year-old son, have substantially increased as Steven 

has grown older and entered school. In addition, inflation 

since the parties' divorce has increased the cost of food, 

clothing, and other items for Steven. 

Husband testified that his net income was $924.61 per 

month and that his expenses, including child support, amount 

to $825 per month. Since the parties' divorce in 1977, 

husband also has received annual cost of living salary 
increa-ses in his employment with the Great Falls Fire 

Department and is therefore, earning more now than at the 

time of the divorce. 

After the hearing, the District Court issued its 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order increasing 

child support payments to $200 per month. The District Court 

adopted most of wife's proposed findings, refusing only to 

grant attorney fees and costs. Husband appeals from the 

District Court's order, and presents the following issues for 

our review: 

1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the 

increase in child support payments? 

2. Whether the District Court erred by adopting most of 

wife's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law? 

Wife also raised the following issue in her brief: 

1. Whether the District Court erred by refusing to 

grant attorney fees and costs? 

We affirm the District Court on all issues. 

Husband first contends that the District Court erred in 

increasing his child support obligation. When determining 

whether the child support obligation in this case should be 

modified, the District Court is governed by section 

40-4-208 (2) (b) (i) , MCA, which states: 

"Whenever the decree proposed for modification 

contains provision relating to. . support, 

modification. . . may only be made 

"(i) upon a showing of changed circumstances so 

substantial and continuing as to make the terms 

unconscionable." 

This Court will reverse the District Court on this issue 

only if the District Court's findings are clearly erroneous 

in light of the evidence in the record. Rule 52(a), 
M.R.Civ.P.; Reynolds v. Reynolds (1983), Mont . -- 660 

P.2d 90, 40 St.Rep. 321. 

Although this is a close case in relation to the 

evidence presented to prove that an increase in child support 

is necessary, we do not find that the District Court's 

findings are clearly erroneous, and must therefore uphold 

the decision of the District Court. In its findings, the 

District Court relied upon the increased age and needs of the 

parties' son and the effect that inflation had upon wife's 

ability to buy food, clothing, and other items necessary for 

raising the child. These factors have been relied upon by 

this Court in several other cases wherein we upheld an 

increase in child support. See Reynolds v. ~eynolds (1983) , 

-- Mont . , 660 P.2d 90, 40 St.Rep. 321, and Baer v. 

Baer, (19821, Mont . , 647 P.2d 835, 39 St.Rep. 1178. 

In this case, the above-mentioned factors coupled with the 

fact that wife's expenses exceed her income, demonstrate that 

the changed circumstances of the parties are so substantial 

and continuing as to make the terms of the original decree 

unconscionable. The District Court's findings, therefore, 

are not clearly erroneous. 

Husband next argues that the District Court erred in 

adopting most of wife's proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. This issue has been discussed by this 

Court on numerous occasions. See Parenteau v. Parenteau 

(1983) Mont . -I - P.2d , 40 St.Rep. 815; Baer 

v. Raer (19821, Mont. , 647 P.2d 835, 39 St.Rep. 

1178; In re Marriage of Jensen (1981), Mont . , 631 

P.2d 700, 38 St.Rep. 1109. Although this Court disapproves 

of wholesale adoption of proposed findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, we will uphold the District Court's 

findings if they are not clearly erroneous. 

I1 . findings and conclusions which are 

sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the 

issues to provide a basis for decision, and which 

are supported by the evidence. . . will not be 

overturned simply because the trial court relied 

upon proposed findings and conclusions submitted by 

counsel.'' Parenteau,40 St.Rep. at 819. 

Since the District Court's findings are not clearly 

erroneous and the conclusions of law properly reflect the 

laws of Montana, we uphold the order of the District Court. 

Finally, wife contends that the District Court erred in 

refusing to grant attorney fees and costs. We cannot review 

this issue, however, because wife failed to file a 

cross-appeal. 

"Although Rule 14 (M.R.App.Civ.P.) provides for 

review of matters by cross-assignment of error, 

this does not eliminate the necessity for 

cross-appeal by a respondent who seeks review of 

rulings on matters separate and distinct from those 

sought to be reviewed by the appellant." Johnson 

v. Tindall (1981), 195 Mont. 165, 169, 635 P.2d 

266, 268. 

The order of the District Court is affirmed. & d Justice ,Y* 

We Concur: 

?A&$, a& 

Chief Justice 

s Justices