file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-188%20Opinion.htm

No. 00-188 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2000 MT 350N 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

CHARLES L. PARKS,

Petitioner and Appellant,

and

JANET L. PARKS,

Respondent and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Carter,

The Honorable Gary L. Day, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Jeffery A. Simkovic; Simkovic & Murray, Billings, Montana

For Respondent:

Albert R. Batterman, Attorney at Law, Glendive, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: July 20, 2000 

Decided: December 21, 2000

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-188%20Opinion.htm (1 of 3)4/2/2007 1:51:36 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-188%20Opinion.htm

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating 

Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public 

document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, 

Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to 

West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.

¶2 Charles L. Parks (Charles) appeals from certain valuations of property in this 

dissolution of marriage entered by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Carter County. 

We affirm and remand for a determination of the amount of attorney fees to be awarded to 

Janet L. Parks (Janet) for this appeal.

¶3 Charles argues that by overvaluing marital property awarded to him--a log home and 

capital credits from Southeast Electric and Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperatives--and by 

failing to recognize as a marital debt a sum owed to the Farm Credit Services for which he 

takes responsibility, the District Court has arrived at an inequitable distribution of the 

marital property. We have reviewed the record, which supports the court's valuations of 

these items. 

¶4 Moreover, Rule 1, M.R.App.P., provides that an aggrieved party may appeal from a 

judgment or order. Regardless of the valuations assigned, the distribution of the above 

property as ordered by the District Court matches the distribution Charles advocated in his 

proposed findings, conclusions, and decree of dissolution submitted to the court. Nor does 

Charles argue that the distribution of the marital estate should be otherwise modified as a 

result of the property and debt valuations assigned by the District Court to which he 

objects on appeal. We conclude that Charles has not established that he is an aggrieved 

party with a right to appeal from the judgment entered by the District Court. See 

Branstetter v. Beaumont Supper Club, Inc. (1986), 224 Mont. 20, 727 P.2d 933 (a party is 

not aggrieved if the district court has ruled in that party's favor).

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-188%20Opinion.htm (2 of 3)4/2/2007 1:51:36 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-188%20Opinion.htm

¶5 Under Rule 32, M.R.App.P., damages may be assessed for an appeal taken without 

substantial or reasonable grounds. Janet has requested an award of her reasonable attorney 

fees incurred in this appeal. On this record, we conclude that such an award is proper. We 

remand this case to the District Court for a determination of the amount of such fees to be 

awarded to Janet.

¶6 Affirmed and remanded. 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-188%20Opinion.htm (3 of 3)4/2/2007 1:51:36 PM