No 

No. 98-103

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1998 MT 290N

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF

NORMA L. SCRANTON,

Petitioner and Respondent,

and

DENNIS E. SCRANTON,

Respondent and Appellant.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-103%20Opinion.htm (1 of 5)4/20/2007 10:38:23 AM
No 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,

In and for the County of Broadwater,

The Honorable Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Dennis E. Scranton, Pro Se, Miles City, Montana

For Respondent:

J. Dennis Corbin, Corbin Law Office, Miles City, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: November 19, 1998

Decided: December 1, 1998 

Filed:

__________________________________________

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-103%20Opinion.htm (2 of 5)4/20/2007 10:38:23 AM
No 

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 but 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. Dennis E. Scranton (Dennis), appearing pro se, appeals from the order of the 

First Judicial District Court, Broadwater County, granting the motion for change of 

venue filed by Norma L. Scranton (Norma) and transferring jurisdiction from 

Broadwater County to Custer County. We affirm.

¶3. The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in failing to rule on 

Dennis' Motion for Hearing, thereby effectively denying the Motion.

¶4. Dennis and Norma married in 1968. In 1987, when both parties resided in 

Townsend, Broadwater County, Montana, Norma petitioned for dissolution of the 

marriage. Dennis did not respond to the petition, but the parties subsequently 

entered into a Child Custody and Property Settlement Agreement (Agreement). The 

District Court held a hearing and entered Dennis' default. At the hearing, Norma 

expressed a desire for a decree of legal separation, rather than proceeding with her 

petition for dissolution of the marriage. The District Court subsequently entered 

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of Legal Separation which 

incorporated the parties' Agreement.

¶5. On November 26, 1997, Norma filed a Motion for Change of Venue to Custer 

County in which she asserted that both she and Dennis currently were residents of 

Miles City, Custer County, Montana. Dennis did not file a brief in opposition to 

Norma's motion. Instead, on December 10, 1997, he filed a Motion for Hearing which 

referenced a number of matters relating to the 1988 proceeding and asserted that 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-103%20Opinion.htm (3 of 5)4/20/2007 10:38:23 AM
No 

"their [sic] is a possibility Federal Law has been violated." Dennis' motion also stated 

that "Respondent is making plans to again become a resident of Broadwater County, 

and travel to Custer County would be a hardship." No brief in support of the motion 

was filed and Dennis did not submit any supporting affidavits.

¶6. After the time had run for Dennis to respond to Norma's motion and/or support 

his own motion, the District Court entered its order granting Norma's motion for 

change of venue to Custer County pursuant to § 25-2-201(3), MCA, which mandates 

a change of venue when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be 

promoted by the change. According to the court, "it would be foolish for two 

residents of Miles City to travel to Townsend to adjust their grievances." Dennis 

appeals.

¶7. Did the District Court err in failing to rule on Dennis' Motion for Hearing, 

thereby effectively denying the Motion?

¶8. Dennis contends that he was entitled to a hearing on Norma's change of venue 

motion and that the District Court's failure to grant his Motion for Hearing 

constitutes error. We disagree.

¶9. First, the record is clear that Dennis did not file a brief in opposition to Norma's 

motion for change of venue within the 10 days required by Rule 2(a), Unif.D.Ct.R. 

Indeed, he did not file a brief opposing the motion at all. Under Rule 2(b), failure to 

file a timely answer brief is deemed an admission that the motion is well taken; 

therefore, Norma's motion was deemed submitted pursuant to Rule 2(d) when 

Dennis' time for responding had expired. Thus, the District Court clearly acted 

within its authority in granting Norma's motion without a hearing.

¶10. Moreover, Dennis also did not properly support his Motion for Hearing, as 

required by Rule 2(a), Unif.D.Ct.R. As a result, his motion was subject to summary 

ruling under Rule 2(b). For that reason, the District Court was authorized to deny 

Dennis' motion without further notice or proceedings. 

¶11. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the statement in Dennis' Motion for 

Hearing--to the effect that he was making plans to "again become a resident of 

Broadwater County" at some unspecified time--properly could be construed as a 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-103%20Opinion.htm (4 of 5)4/20/2007 10:38:23 AM
No 

response in affidavit form to Norma's motion for change of venue, the statement 

effectively admitted--as did his Miles City address on his court filings--that he, like 

Norma, was a resident of Custer County. Thus, the District Court's grant of the 

change of venue to Custer County for the convenience of witnesses and in the 

interests of justice was supported by both parties' record statements.

¶12. Finally, as in the District Court, Dennis cites to no authority in this Court under 

which he was entitled to a hearing on Norma's motion in this case. Rule 23, M.R.App.

P., requires citations to authority and when that requirement is not met, we properly 

decline to address the matter further.

¶13. We hold that the District Court did not err in failing to rule on Dennis' Motion 

for Hearing, thereby effectively denying the Motion.

¶14. Affirmed.

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-103%20Opinion.htm (5 of 5)4/20/2007 10:38:23 AM