Title: MARRIAGE OF ROME
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-209
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 12, 1981

No. 80-209 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1980 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F NANCY JANE ROME, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, vs . N E L S O N A L L E N ROME, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Powell. Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: William R. Taylor, D e e r Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Ted L. Mizner, County Attorney, D e e r Lodge, Montana James J. Masar, D e e r Lodge, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : August 23, 1980 Decided: JAB 1 & @@ F i l e d : - 1 2 j/fJ@i M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Respondent Nelson A l l e n Rome a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d i n Powell County a r i s i n g o u t of a URESA a c t i o n , o r d e r i n g him t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e s , and denying a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d s u p p o r t payments. Nancy J a n e Rome and Nelson A l l e n Rome were married i n 1968 and a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n was e n t e r e d i n Powell County i n 1978. The care and c u s t o d y of t h e t w o c h i l d r e n born of t h e m a r r i a g e was g i v e n t o Nancy Rome. The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement, which provided, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t Nelson Rome was to pay $150 p e r month p e r c h i l d i n c h i l d s u p p o r t . I n December 1979, Nancy Rome p e t i t i o n e d t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, f o r enforcement of t h e s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e . The a c t i o n was t r a n s f e r r e d t o Powell County and was c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h an a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by Nelson Rome t o modify s u p p o r t payments t o $100 p e r month p e r c h i l d , because of changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The d i s t r i c t judge denied t h e p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n , f i n d i n g t h a t Nelson Rome v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d i n t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s reducing h i s a b i l i t y to pay, and t h a t t h e change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s was i n s u f f i c i e n t to w a r r a n t t h e r e d u c t i o n . H e also o r d e r e d Nelson Rome t o pay a r r e a r a g e s of $1100. Nelson a p p e a l s , b r i n g i n g one i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court: Did t h e District Court err i n r e f u s i n g t o reduce c h i l d s u p p o r t payments where a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e d changes i n h i s f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n , b r o u g h t a b o u t by a v o l u n t a r y change i n employment and by h i s r e m a r r i a g e ? S e c t i o n 40-4-208, MCA, sets o u t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which a modi- f i c a t i o n of a s u p p o r t o r d e r may be e n t e r e d : " M o d i f i c a t i o n and t e r m i n a t i o n o f p r o v i s i o n s for maintenance, s u p p o r t , and p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n . (1) Except as o t h e r w i s ~ r o v i d e d i n 40-4-201( 6 ) , a d e c r e e may be modified by a c o u r t as to main- t e n a n c e o r s u p p o r t o n l y as to i n s t a l l m e n t s a c c r u i n g subsequent to t h e motion f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . " ( b ) Whenever t h e d e c r e e proposed f o r modifica- t i o n c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g to maintenance or s u p p o r t , m o d i f i c a t i o n under s u b s e c t i o n (1 ) may o n l y be made: " ( i ) upon a showing of changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g as t o make t h e terms u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . . ." The d i s t r i c t judge i n h i s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s d e t e r - mined t h a t . . . t h e Respondent h a s changed h i s employment from t h e hardware b u s i n e s s i n which h e h a s p r e v i o u s l y been employed t o f i e l d employment i n t h e logging i n d u s t r y , which he f i n d s less f i n a n c i a l l y r e m u n e r a t i v e , and f o r t h e s e r e a s o n s s e e k s a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e amount of maintenance and s u p p o r t f o r h i s minor c h i l d r e n . "Wherefore, it is concluded t h a t t h e changes i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e l i e d upon by t h e Respondent h e r e i n have been u n i l a t e r a l l y made and he has v o l u n t a r i l y assumed t h e o b l i g a t i o n s of a second f a m i l y . "That t h e changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s are i n s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a change i n t h e amount of s u p p o r t n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e minor c h i l d r e n , i s s u e of t h e m a r r i a g e , and t h e P e t i t i o n is denied." C h i l d s u p p o r t must r e f l e c t a b a l a n c e among t h e needs of t h e p a r t i e s involved and t h e a b i l i t y of t h e p a r e n t s t o pay. S e c t i o n 40-4-204, MCA. Normally, a s u b s t a n t i a l change i n t h e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e p a r e n t or c h i l d h a s been recognized as grounds f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of a p r e v i o u s l y - e n t e r e d c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r . G i a n o t t i v. McCracken ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 209, 215, 569 P.2d 929, 932; Harding v. Harding ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 59 Ill.App.3d 25, 374 N.E.2d 1304; Annot., 89 ALR2d 7 , 53. A p p e l l a n t h e r e a l l e g e s s u b s t a n t i a l changes, b u t he a d m i t s t h a t he v o l u n t a r i l y brought about t h e c o n d i t i o n s which worsened h i s f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n . Many j u r i s d i c t i o n s hold t h a t i f a p a r e n t v o l u n t a r i l y changes h i s / h e r f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , such changes are n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o deem t h e p r e v i o u s c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r unconscionable, and t h e r e f o r e should n o t even be c o n s i d e r e d . Miller v. Miller ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 65 Ill.App.3d 844, 382 N.E.2d 823, 826; Lambert v. Lambert ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 66 Wash.2d 503, 403 P.2d 664, 668; B u r n e t t v. B u r n e t t ( 1 9 7 4 ) , KY , 516 S.W.2d 330, 332; Annots. 89 ALR.2d 7, 519; 89 ALR.2d 106 S3. T h i s is an i s s u e of f i r s t impression i n Montana. A con- s i d e r a t i o n of d i f f e r i n g a u t h o r i t i e s has convinced t h i s Court t h a t s u c h an i n f l e x i b l e approach is t o o h a r s h . Although w e h o l d t h a t a r e d u c t i o n i n a b i l i t y to pay brought about through a v o l u n t a r y change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s is n o t , i n i t s e l f , s u f f i c i e n t to mandate a m o d i f i c a t i o n of s u p p o r t , n e i t h e r do we approve t h e view t h a t self-imposed changes can n e v e r be c o n s i d e r e d as r e a s o n s f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . The b e t t e r approach is t o a l l o w t h e judge t o con- s i d e r t h e n a t u r e of t h e changes and t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e changes, and t h e n to d e t e r m i n e whether, under a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a m o d i f i c a t i o n is warranted. See Nelson v. Nelson ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 225 O r . 257, 357 P.2d 536. The f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n t h i s case i n d i c a t e t h a t he c o n s i d e r e d t h e v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e of N e l s o n ' s job change and r e m a r r i a g e , and, upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , h e determined t h a t Nelson d i d n o t show t h a t t h e s e changes s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l t e r e d h i s a b i l i t y to pay. Evidence was p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l as t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e incomes and needs of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e judge made f i n d i n g s r e f l e c t i n g t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of a l l o f t h e p a r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n . See G i a n o t t i , s u p r a , 174 Mont. a t 215, 569 P.2d a t 932; Kronovich v. Kronovich ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . , 588 P.2d 510, 513-514, 35 St.Rep. 1946, 1951. Based on h i s f i n d i n g s , t h e d i s t r i c t judge concluded t h a t t h e change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s shown by Nelson Rome was n o t substan- t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g enough t o r e n d e r t h e p r i o r s u p p o r t o r d e r u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . W e presume t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t judge are c o r r e c t and we w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n them u n l e s s t h e r e is a preponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t them. Rule 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.; Cameron v. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . , 587 P.2d 939, 945, 35 St.Rep. 1723, 1729. Here, w e f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i - dence t o s u p p o r t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . Af f irmed . Chief Justice We concw: