IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. 96-186 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

CHRISTENE L. DAVIS, 

i OPINION 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

v. 

AND 

ORDE 

i 

STANLEY G. DAVIS, 

Respondent and Appellant. ) 

This matter is currently before this Court on an appeal filed 

by Stanley G. Davis (Davis). Davis has appealed from an order 

issued by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, 

dismissing his petition for judicial review. The Child Support 

Enforcement Division of the Montana Department of Public Health and 

Human Services ICSED), acting on behalf of Christene L. Davis 

(Christene) , has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the 

grounds that it is fruitless, weightless, needless and senseless. 

The current dispute originates from an April 18, 1984, decree, 

judgment and order entered by the District Court ordering Davis to 

pay $175 per month in child support for his two minor children. 

Davis did not perfect an appeal from the final judgment and order, 

nor has it been amended, modified or set aside. Christene 

subsequently applied for and received Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children for the minor children. 

On June 26, 1995, CSED filed a notice of intent to withhold 

income pursuant to § 40-5-413, MCA, alleging that Davis was 

delinquent on his child support obligation in the amount of $44, 

975. Davis requested an administrative hearing and on August 15, 

1995, a hearing was conducted. Following the hearing the 

Administrative Law Judge issued a decision and order determining 

that Davis was delinquent on his child support obligation in the 

amount of $44,975. 
On August 29, 1995, Davis filed a document with the District 

Court which appeared to be an appeal from the Administrative Law 

Judges decision and order. Davis did not serve CSED with the 

document. On the same day the District Court issued an order 

stating that M [tlhe action from which Respondent appeals is 

unclear, and the document filed by Respondent is deficient in many 

respects." Nevertheless, the court allowed the document to be 

filed but cautioned that no further action would be taken until 

Davis properly perfected the appeal. 

On October 11, 1995, Davis filed a "Petition for Judicial 

Review" with the District Court. The document named the State of 

Montana and CSED as Respondents and once again CSED was not 

properly served with the petition. Davis requested that the 

District Court invalidate his divorce decree and support order 

because of fraud. The petition also made claims against persons 

who were not involved with CSED's administrative action and 

requested money damages from the State. 

The District Court dismissed the petition with prejudice 

stating that justice would not be served by requiring CSED to 

respond to a pleading that is "fatally flawed on its face." The 

court stated that the relief Davis sought was outside the court's 

power to grant and noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not 

permit Davis to convert an appeal from an administrative decision 

into a lawsuit against the agency which made the decision. Davis 

appealed to this Court from the District Court's order dismissing 

his petition. CSED then filed its motion to dismiss the appeal 

which is presently before this Court. Davis has requested that 

this Court consider CSED's brief in support of its motion to 

dismiss as its brief in response to his appeal. We therefore 

choose to review the appeal on its merits rather than under a 

motion to dismiss standard. 

The Montana Administrative Procedure Act allows for judicial 

review of agency decisions. Section 2-4-702, MCA, provides that a 

petition for judicial review must be timely filed and must include 

a concise statement of the facts and a statement of the manner in 

2 
which the petitioner is aggrieved. The petitioner must state the 

grounds as specified in § Z-4-704(2), MCA, upon which he or she 

contends relief is entitled. Section 2-4-702(l) (b), MCA, states 

that the petition may not raise any other question not raised 

before the agency unless good cause is shown and § 2-4-702(2)(a), 

MCA, requires the petition to be promptly served upon the agency 

and all parties of record. Section Z-4-704, MCA, states that 

judicial review shall be confined to the record and that the court 

may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on 

evidentiary matters. 

In dismissing Davis' petition, the District Court determined 

that it had not been properly perfected and that Davis' request for 

relief went beyond the scope of the court's judicial review power. 

When a district court dismisses a cause of action we must determine 

whether the court abused its discretion. Nystrom v. Melcher 

(19931, 262 Mont. 151, 157, 864 P.2d 754, 758. The test of abuse 

of discretion is whether the court acted arbitrarily without 

employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of 

reason resulting in substantial injustice. Gaustad v. City of 

Columbus (1995), 272 Mont. 486, 488, 901 P.2d 565, 567. 

In the present case, Davis had the opportunity to appeal his 

original divorce decree and/or modify the support provisions in the 

order. He chose to pursue neither of those remedies and instead 

became delinquent on his child support obligation. CSED initiated 

administrative action to collect the past-due debt and, following 

an evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge entered its 

decision and order. Davis' petition for judicial review of that 

order does not comply with the requirements of Montana's 

Administrative Procedure Act set forth above and seeks relief 

beyond that which the District Court or this Court has the power to 

grant. 

We therefore determine that the District Court did not act 

arbitrarily without employing conscientious judgment, nor did it 

exceed the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice when 

it dismissed Davis1 petition. We conclude that the District Court 

3 
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Davis' petition. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that CSED's motion to dismiss Davis' appeal is 

DENIED. The District Court's October 11, 1995 "Order of Dismissal" 

is hereby affirmed. 

The Clerk is directed to mail a true copy of this Opinion and 

Order to Stanley G. Davis, to counsel of record for CSED and to the 

Honorable Michael C. Prezeau, District Judge. 

DATED this of July, 1996. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

-_ St I hereby certify that the following certified order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

Stanley G. Davis 

3264 Iron Creek Rd. 

Troy, MT 59935 

John M. McRae, Dept. of Public Health & Human Services 

Child Support Enforcement Div. 

1610 So. 3rd West, Ste. 201 

Missoula, MT 59801 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA