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. Watters, Presiding Judge 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

 Linda L. Harris, Harris Law Firm, 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: 

__________________________________________ 

Clerk
 2 

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered 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 disposition 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. They have one minor child, Sarah. The District 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 Shapard 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 rental 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 filed with the District Court. During the 

dissolution hearing, Shapard testified about the rental value of this property on direct 

examination and cross-examination and did not object to including it as income. In 

addition, Shapard failed to object when Cruse offered an exhibit that includes the rental 

value of her free housing as a discrete 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 the District Court, and 

having never brought this alleged error to the attention of the District Court, Shapard may 

not raise it for the first time on appeal. 

¶4 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003, 

amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal 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 merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial 

evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District 

Court correctly interpreted, and there was clearly 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