Title: BURRIS v BURRIS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13288
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 14, 1976

No. 13288 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1976 M A R T H A J. BURRIS, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, BILLY C. BURRIS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Smith and Rice, Havre, Montana Ronald W. Smith argued, Havre, Montana For Respondent: Frank Altman argued, Havre, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald Smith appeared, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted: October 27, 1976 F i l e d ::!F?. b ' I976 M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, H i l l County, s i t t i n g without a jury, Hon. LeRoy McKinnon, presiding. The judgment modified a divorce decree entered March 1, 1974, increasing a child support for the youngest and only remaining minor child from $125 per month to $200, and specifying the length of the v i s i t a t i o n period the father i s entitled t o have with the child annually. Plaintiff Martha Burris was granted a divorce from defendant Billy Burris on March 1, 1974. The divorce granted p l a i n t i f f mother $250 per month alimony, plus $125 per month child support for each of the three minor children of the marriage. Child support was t o continue u n t i l each child reached h i s majority. Defendant was t o have reasonable visitation rights with the children, and p l a i n t i f f was granted custody. A t the end of the school year i n 1974, p l a i n t i f f mother and the three minor children moved t o Oklahoma. She currently i s employed there as a teacher's aide and is paid $2.10 per hour during the school year. T w o of the children have now reached majority and the mother now receives support payments only for the youngest . In May 1975, defendant father brought an action t o modify the original decree requesting the alimony obligation be stricken and the visitation rights be more clearly defined. The mother f i l e d a cross-petition i n response requesting modification of the decree increasing the amount of support for each of two children who were minors a t that time. The d i s t r i c t court's judgment increased the child support for the remaining minor child and granted the the father s i x weeks visitation rights each summer. The issue for review on t h i s appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient t o support the court's judgment. This Court's function i n review of a determination of the d i s t r i c t court i s not t o substitute its judgment i n place of the d i s t r i c t court's, but rather it i s confined t o determining i f there is substantial credible evidence t o support the d i s t r i c t court's determination. Hornung v. Estate of Lagerquist, 155 Mont. 412, 420, 473 P.2d 541. The fact that there may have been conflicts i n the testimony does not mean there is not substantial evidence t o support the verdict. Davis v. Davis, 159 Mont. 355, 361, 497 P.2d 315. Transamerica Ins, Co. v. Glacier Gen. Assur. Co., 163 Mont, 454, 461, 517 P.2d 888. I n the instant matter evidence was presented by each party and, of necessity, was i n part conflicting. However, there was substantial credible evidence of a' change of circumstances since the original decree --- increased expenses on the part of the p l a i n t i f f mother and increased income of the defendant father. There was sufficient credible evidence t o support the t r i a l court's judgment, and therefore we find no abuse of discretion and the judgment is affirmed. #is t i c e ; ,budge, s i t t i n g for Justice t'wesley Castles. - 3 - i