NO. 95-048 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1995 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Powder River, 

The Honorable Kenneth R. Wilson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Jerrold L. Nye, Nye & Meyer, 

Billings, Montana 

For Respondent: 

A. Lance Tom, Lucas & Monaghan, 

Miles City, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: April 27, 1995 

Decided: July 17, 1995 
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Appellant Scott J. Sanburn appeals from an order modifying 

child support issued by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, 

Powder River County. We affirm. 

The sole issue on appeal is: 

Did the District Court err when it determined the amount of 

modification in appellant's child support obligation? 

Scott and Pam Sanburn were divorced on July 14, 1992. Scott 

was ordered to pay $650 per month in child support for the parties' 

three minor children. In May 1994, one of the children was 

emancipated following graduation from high school. Pursuant to the 

final decree of dissolution, upon the oldest child's emancipation, 

Scott's child support obligation was reduced to $500 per month as 

of June 15, 1994. In July 1994, Scott filed a motion to modify his 

child support obligation based on changed financial circumstances. 

A hearing on this motion was held on September 8, 1994. 

At the hearing, the District Court heard testimony from both 

parties and received financial affidavits and child support 

calculations from Scott. Scott's child support calculation 

worksheet placed his child support obligation amount at $149 per 

month. Scott did not produce documentation at the hearing to 

support his assertion that his finances had changed to the extent 

that child support modification was necessary. He did not provide 

any documentation of his expenses. Scott's testimony regarding his 

current and future financial circumstances was vague, and consisted 

of rough estimates of the dates of employment and the amount of 

2 
money earned. He was not any more specific when testifying as to 

his future employment and earnings. He testified that he worked 

construction and ranching jobs, and also that he is self-employed. 

He raises and sells calves with a partner. He testified that he 

would be losing money on the calf operation for 1994, but that he 

intended to continue the operation. His testimony was 

contradictory and confusing, and contradicted the information in 

his financial affidavit. There were discrepancies in Scott's 

testimony between the amount of his earnings and expenses. Scott 

testified that his tax returns do not accurately reflect the amount 

of his earnings, due to the inclusion of personal expenses as 

business expenses for tax purposes. 

Because of the contradictory and confusing nature of Scott's 

testimony, following the hearing the District Court ordered him to 

submit more accurate child support calculations. Scott's second 

calculated child support obligation increased by $6, to a total of 

$155 per month. Pam's child support calculation worksheets put 

Scott's child support obligation amount at $507 per month. The 

existing child support obligation was $500 per month. The District 

Court found Scott's first and second child support calculations, 

and his testimony, to be incredible, and rejected them in toto. 

The only documentation the District Court had was Scott's 1993 and 

1992 income tax returns, and it based its award of child support on 

that documentation. The District Court set the child support 

amount at $405 per month. 

3 
Did the District Court err when it determined the amount of 

modification in appellant's child support obligation? 

Our standard of review in child support modifications is 

whether the district court abused its discretion. In re Marriage 

of Hill (1994), 265 Mont. 52, 57, 874 P.2d 705, 707 (citing In re 

Marriage of D.F.D. and D.G.D. (1993), 261 Mont. 186, 203, 862 P.2d 

368, 378). 

Scott argues that the District Court attributed income to him 

that is not supported by the record. The District Court used the 

following figures in its child support calculations for Scott: 

Wages $12,373 

Self-Employment 6,214 

Depreciation 3,500 

Interest 

TOTAL: $22,1% 

These figures came from Scott's income tax returns and from his 

July 1994 affidavit. 

Modification of a child support obligation requires that the 

party seeking the modification establish circumstances so 

substantial and continuing as to make the original child support 

obligation unconscionable. Section 40-4-208(2) (b) (i), MCA. In re 

Marriage of Paunovich (Mont. 1995), 890 P.2d 1291, 1293, 52 

St. Rep. 144, 145 (citing In re Marriage of Clyatt (1994), 267 

Mont. 119, 121-22, 882 P.2d 503, 505). 

In this case, Scott failed to establish that his financial 

circumstances changed to the extent that his original child support 

obligation was unconscionable. He provided no documentation to 

support his testimony. His testimony was contradictory, vague, and 

4 
confusing, and did not support the information he provided in his 

financial affidavit. After the hearing, the District Court 

requested different child support calculations from Scott. Scott 

testified that he was able to pay $200 per month. He was currently 

paying $500 per month, and his second calculation indicated an 

obligation amount of $155 per month. 

The evidence in the record supports the amount of income the 

District Court attributed to Scott. We see no abuse of discretion 

by the District Court. We hold that the District Court did not 

abuse its discretion when it determined the amount of income 

attributable to Scott. 

Scott contends that the child support obligation ordered by 

the District Court does not conform to the Montana Child Support 

Guidelines. 

The District Court ordered Scott to submit new child support 

calculations after the hearing. The District Court stated in its 

order that it rejected Scott's testimony and his two child support 

calculations in toto. It used a combination of figures from 

Scott's income tax returns and from his July 1994 affidavit. 

When a district court does not specifically follow the child 

support guidelines it must state the reasons why they are 

inappropriate in that case. Section 40-4-204(3) (b), MCA. 

In this case, the District Court stated that it rejected 

Scott's testimony and child support calculations in toto. It 

stated that Scott's contradictory testimony and his child support 

computations put him in a "disingenuous" position. It is clear 

5 
that the District court could not base its child support 

calculations on evidence that it rejected. It rejected Scott's 

offered evidence because of its incredibility. We hold that the 

District Court conformed to the Child Support Guidelines. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3 (c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result 

to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. 

We concur: 

6