NO. 93-575 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN RE THE GRANDPARENT 

VISITATION OF BRENDAN HUNTER ............................ 

DONNA PINTO, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

v. 

PAIGE ANDERSON, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lincoln, 

The Honorable Robert S. Keller, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Paul A. Sandry, Warden, Christiansen, Johnson 

and Berg, Kalispell, Montana 

For Respondent: 

David W. Harman, Libby, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: February 17, 1994 

Decided: March 10, 1994 
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Paige Anderson (Paige) appeals from a decision of the 

Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County. The court 

ordered that Paige's mother, Donna Pinto (Donna), could enjoy 

grandparent visitation with Paige's son, Brendan Hunter. We 

affirm. 

The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred 

by issuing its grandparent visitation decree without specifically 

setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in the 

decree. 

In June 1993, Donna petitioned the court for permanent 

grandparent visitation with her grandson. Donna also moved the 

court for temporary visitation during the 1993 summer. 

At a hearing on the motion for temporary visitation, the court 

stated that it was prepared to consider evidence and to enter a 

permanent order. Both parties stated that was satisfactory. 

The court issued a grandparent visitation decree after 

determining that it would be in Brendan's best interests to visit 

with his grandmother and that there is a bonding between the pair. 

Paige appeals. 

Did the District Court err by issuing its grandparent 

visitation decree without specifically setting forth its findings 

of fact and conclusions of law in the decree? 

~aige asserts that the court erred because it 

2 
failed to comply with Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. by failing 

to set forth Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law upon 

which it had based its Order. 

Paigels argument is not credible in light of the record and the 

plain language of Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., which states: 

It will be sufficient if the [court's] findings of fact 

and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in 

open court following the close of the evidence or appear 

in an opinion or memorandum of decision filed by the 

court. 

After reviewing the record, we hold that the court orally found 

facts at the hearing on the motion for temporary visitation and 

that its findings and conclusions were properly recorded in open 

court. We conclude that the District Court did not err. 

Af f inned. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

Chief 4F? Justice 
We concur: 
March 10, 1994 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

Paul A. Sandry, Esq. 

Warden, Christiansen, Johnson & Berg 

P.O. Box 3038 

Kalispell, MT 59903-3038 

David W. Harman 

Attorney at Law 

120 West Sixth St. 

Libby, MT 59923 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT