L: 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0396 

IN RE THE MATTER OF: 

KATI-ILEEN ELLEN SAWFER, 

Petitioner and Appellee, 

and 

CHRISTOPHER PAUL SAWFER, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

FILED 

SEP 14 2021 

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana 

ORDER 

Self-represented Appellant Christopher Paul Sawfer (Christopher) has filed two 

motions seeking to stay execution of judgment entered in the Fourth Judicial District Court 

and seeking to stay the sale of the marital home. His first motion was filed prematurely as 

the District Court had not issued an order denying his request for stay. Counsel for 

Appellee Kathleen Ellen Sawfer (Kathleen) has filed a response in opposition. 

M. R. App. P. 22(2)(b)(i). Christopher has also filed a reply, which is not recognized, 

pursuant to M. R. App. P. 16(3). We address Christopher's request for stay of judgment 

and stay of the sale of the marital home. 

Christopher provides that the marital home was to be sold within thirty days of the 

court's July 28, 2021 Order. He argues that many other options were available in lieu of 

selling the marital home. He states that "the sale of the family home in the current real 

estate market will create additional pain and suffering to the three minor children that 

currently reside in the family home . . . ." In his second pending motion, Christopher 

alleges that the children's best interests have been ignored. He further states that 

"[t]here would be significant irreparable harm to the children, their livelihoods, their 4H 

projects, their mental health and stability, as well as, their developmental needs." 

09/14/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0396
Kathleen contends that Christopher has not complied with this Court's Rules and 

that his motions fail to demonstrate good cause. Kathleen explains that Christopher's 

motions for a stay should be denied because of the resulting economic hardship to her. 

Under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, a person first must seek a stay in 

District Court. M. R. App. P. 22(1)(a)(i). Christopher has done so, and the District Court 

has denied his request. When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion for stay, this 

Court is guided by Rule 22(2)(a), which requires that a party seeking relief from the order 

file a motion within 11 days of the order and demonstrate good cause for the relief 

requested. Christopher's second motion was filed timely. M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a). 

The District Court provided its supporting rationale for the denial of the motion. 

M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d). The District Court concluded that no irreparable harm would come 

to Christopher if the house were to be sold because Kathleen is due her portion of the 

marital estate. In its Order, the court explained that during the April 21, 2021 hearing, the 

court heard testimony about the marital estate and the imposed sale of the marital home. 

The court stated: 

The [c]ourt does not find irreparable harm to Christopher in the event 

the house is sold pending the adjudication of his appeal. Rather, the court 

finds that Kathleen requires access to her equitable portion of the marital 

estate to avoid irreparable financial harm. Testimony at the hearing held on 

April 21, 2021, established that Kathleen has only avoided financial 

insolvency because of loans frorn her family. She has received virtually 

nothing from the marital estate to date, of which the marital residence is the 

primary asset of value. In fact, Christopher at times has taken steps to 

actively deny Kathleen access to marital resources. After the separation but 

before the economic restraining order was in place, Christopher transferred 

title of the truck that Kathleen has used for transportation during the 

marriage. . . . 

Christopher had ample opportunity to secure financing or propose 

alternative resolutions that would not require Kathleen to finance his 

purchase of her equity and would allow her access to resources from the 

marital estate. He was told at the hearing held on April 21, 2021, that the 

[c]ourt would not order a payment plan option that he was requesting given 

the dynamics of the relationship between [him] and Kathleen. The [c]ourt 

made clear that the options for distributing to Kathleen her share of the equity 

2 
in the marital home were either sale of the home or Christopher refinancing 

to pay out Kathleen her share of the equity. Christopher was unsure of his 

ability to refinance at that time. At the July 28, 2021 hearing in this case, the 

last hearing held prior to the [c]ourt issuing the Decree of Dissolution, 

Christopher still did not have any information about his ability to refinance 

and renewed his request to essentially have Kathleen finance his buyout of 

her interest in the home through a payment plan. 

Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, at 1-2 (Mont. Fourth 

Judicial Dist. Ct. Aug. 25, 2021). Upon review, the District Court gave Christopher time 

and opportunity for another option, and Christopher chose not to pursue that course. We 

conclude that Christopher has not demonstrated good cause for a stay. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Christopher's Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher's Emergency Stay of Execution 

request to prevent the sale of family home is DENIED, as moot. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to 

Christopher Paul Sawfer along with a copy of this Court's Civil Appellate Handbook. 

DATED this % day of September, 2021. 

Chief Justice 

Justices 

:3