No. 05-164 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2006 MT 205N

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF NANCY SHAPARD, Petitioner and Appellant,

v. JOSEPH CRUSE, Respondent and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 03-972, Honorable Susan P. Watt ers, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Linda L. Harris, Harris Law Fi rm, P.C., Billings, Montana For Respondent: Jill Deann LaRance, LaRance & Syth, P.C., Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 7, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006 Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk2 Justice W. William Leaphart delive red the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d ), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disp osition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Nancy Shapard (“Shapard”) and Joseph Cruse (“Cruse”) were married on December 31, 1999. Th ey have one minor ch ild, Sarah. The Dist rict Court issued a decree of dissolution on September 30, 2004. The court awarded Cruse custody of Sarah and ordered Shapard to pay child support. In calculating Shapard’s income, the court included the rental value of housing that Sh apard receives for free from her parents. ¶3 On appeal, Shapard argues that the District Court abused its discretion by imputing income to Shapard based on the rent al value of her free housing. Shapard, however, included her own estimate of the rental value of this property as income on the final child support calculation that she file d with the District Court. During the dissolution hearing, Shapard tes tified about the rental value of this property on direct

examination and cross-examinat ion and did not object to in cluding it as income. In addition, Shapard failed to objec t when Cruse offered an exhib it that includes the rental value of her free housing as a disc rete source of income. “Failure to object to an alleged error precludes an appellant from raising that issue on appeal.” Buhr ex rel. Lloyd v.3 Flathead Co. , 268 Mont. 223, 254, 886 P. 2d 381, 400 (1994) (quoting Barrett v. ASARCO, Inc. , 245 Mont. 196, 205, 799 P.2d 1078 , 1083 (1990)). Having included the rental value of her free housing as income in documents filed with th e District Court, and having never brought this alleged error to the attention of the Distri ct Court, Shapard may not raise it for the first time on appeal. ¶4 It is appropriate to decide this case pur suant to our Order of February 11, 2003, amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Inte rnal Operating Rules and providing for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us that the appeal is without me rit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, the legal issues are clearly contro lled by settled Montana la w which the District Court correctly interpreted, and there was clea rly no abuse of discretion by the District

Court. ¶5 We affirm.

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ PATRICIA COTTER