L:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0396

IN RE THE MATTEROF: KATI-ILEENELLEN 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 seekingto stay execution of judgment enteredin theFourth Judicial District Court and seekingto stay the sale ofthe marital home. His first motionwas 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 ofjudgment and stay ofthe sale ofthe marital home. Christopher provides that the marital home was to be sold within thirty days ofthe 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 ofthe 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, aswell as, their developmental needs." 09/14/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0396Kathleen 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 shouldbe denied because ofthe resulting economic hardship to her. Underthe MontanaRules ofAppellateProcedure, aperson firstmust 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 ofa motion for stay, this Court is guided by Rule 22(2)(a), which requires that aparty seeking relieffrom 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 ofthe motion. M. R.App.P.22(1)(d). TheDistrictCourtconcludedthatnoirreparableharmwould come to Christopher if the house were to be sold because Kathleen is due her portion ofthe marital estate. In its Order, the court explained that duringtheApril 21, 2021 hearing, the court heard testimony about the marital estate and the imposed sale ofthe marital home. The court stated:

The [c]ourt does not find irreparableharm to Christopher in the event the house is sold pending the adjudication ofhis 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, ofwhich 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 ofthe relationship between [him] and Kathleen. The [c]ourt madeclearthattheoptionsfordistributingtoKathleenhershareoftheequity 2in the marital home were either sale ofthe home or Christopher refinancing

to pay out Kathleen her share ofthe equity. Christopher was unsure ofhis ability torefinance atthattime. AttheJuly 28, 2021 hearingin 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 apayment 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 ofExecution ofJudgment is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher's Emergency Stay of Execution requesttoprevent the sale offamily home is DENIED, as moot. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord and to Christopher Paul Sawfer along with a copy ofthis Court's Civil Appellate Handbook. DATED this % day ofSeptember, 2021.

ChiefJustice

Justices

:3