Opinion ID: 883249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: inclusion of additional rulings

Text: The second issue Jerry raises on appeal concerns whether the District Court erred by including various rulings in its Order of Dismissal relative to child support, conditions as to visitation, and attorney fees and costs, when it did not hear any evidence concerning the rulings.
Jerry contends that it was error for the District Court to make a finding that he owed past due child support and other liabilities imposed under the original decree in the amount of $11,197.96, when no evidence supporting that determination was presented to the court. It appears from the record that the District Court simply adopted the arrearage figure set forth in Kayla's brief and included that figure in its Order of Dismissal, when it found Jerry was liable for $11,197.96 in unpaid child support and other liabilities imposed under the original decree. This Court has previously held that a trial court cannot base child support upon speculation. Duffey v. Duffey (1981), 193 Mont. 241, 244, 631 P.2d 697, 699. (Citation omitted.) In the instant case the District Court did not hear evidence from either party as to the amount of child support arrearage. Because no evidence was presented supporting its determination of the amount of child support arrearage, we hold that the District Court's conclusion that a portion of the $11,197.96 was due for past due child support, was speculative and should not have been included in the Order of Dismissal. Similarly, no evidence was presented demonstrating the amount of other obligations Jerry is allegedly responsible for according to the terms of the original decree.
In its Order of Dismissal, the District Court ruled that it would not modify Jerry's visitation rights until he had fulfilled the following conditions: (1) have a home environment study conducted at his expense; (2) undergo psychological testing; (3) communicate his visitation requests directly to Kayla, and not the children; and (4) give sufficient advance notice of an agreeable time and place of visitation before it could take place. Jerry alleges it was error for the District Court to include conditions as to visitation in its order when he was not given the opportunity to testify or present evidence on the visitation issue. We agree. Section 40-4-217(3), MCA, provides that a court may modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever it finds modification would serve the best interests of the child. See also, In re the Marriage of Firman (1980), 187 Mont. 465, 468, 610 P.2d 178, 180. While in order to intelligently and fairly rule on a parent's motion to modify visitation, the court may need to develop the evidentiary record with the sort of information contemplated by (1) and (2) of the court's order, and while, on the basis of the evidentiary record before the court, it may ultimately be appropriate for the court to condition visitation with the sorts of requirements contemplated by (3) and (4), it is equally clear that such requirements and conditions can be imposed in connection with a parent's motion to modify visitation only on the basis of evidence developed in conjunction with a visitation hearing or hearings of which the parties have appropriate notice and opportunity to testify. Moreover, such conditions and requirements may be imposed only if doing so would serve the children's best interests. Strong v. Weaver, 683 P.2d at 1331; In re the Marriage of Firman, 610 P.2d at 180. We hold that the District Court erred by imposing the referenced conditions and requirements without affording Jerry the opportunity for a hearing on his motion and without determining that such conditions and requirements would serve the best interests of the children.
The District Court awarded Kayla attorney fees and costs in conjunction with her attempt to secure child support payments. Jerry alleges it was error to include the award of attorney fees in the Order of Dismissal when he was not given the opportunity to present evidence to refute the claim. Again, we agree. It is clear that a court may in its discretion, after considering the financial resources of both parties, award attorney fees incurred by a party in maintaining or defending a proceeding to secure child support payments. See, § 40-4-110, MCA. Moreover, this Court will not disturb the award of attorney fees if it is supported by substantial evidence. In re the Marriage of Barnard (1990), 241 Mont. 147, 154, 785 P.2d 1387, 1391-92. The evidence presented must demonstrate that the attorney fees and costs are reasonable. In re the Marriage of Aanenson (1979), 183 Mont. 229, 236, 598 P.2d 1120, 1124. To make the showing, a hearing must be held allowing for oral testimony, introduction of exhibits, and an opportunity to cross-examine in which the reasonableness of the attorney fees claimed is demonstrated. In re the Marriage of Aanenson, 598 P.2d at 1124. In the instant case the District Court did not hear any evidence concerning attorney fees. In fact, the issue was never raised at the May 27th hearing. We hold that the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees and costs to Kayla when it did not hear any evidence concerning the necessity for or reasonableness of the award. In summary, while the sorts of rulings which the court made in this case may be proper if supported by a record developed on the basis of an evidentiary hearing and on due consideration of applicable statutory criteria, it was error for the court to make such rulings without an evidentiary hearing and without providing the parties adequate opportunity to testify and present evidence. Underlying the court's rulings in this case is its apparent frustration with Respondent's failure to comply with prior court orders. On that basis, Kayla argues in her brief that the District Court's rulings were proper under Rule 41(b), M.R.Civ.P. That rule provides for involuntary dismissal of an action for, among other things, ... failure of the plaintiff ... to comply with ... any order of [the] court. Aside from the fact that Kayla's motion to dismiss Jerry's motion to modify did not refer to Rule 41(b), and is, thus, argued for the first time on appeal, we have held that ... dismissal under Rule 41(b), M.R.Civ.P. is a harsh remedy. Because the result is severe, courts should refrain from dismissing an action or claim unless there is no other adequate remedy available and where the facts sufficiently call for such a result. Chisholm v. First Nat. Bank of Glasgow (1988), 235 Mont. 219, 220, 766 P.2d 868, 869. In this case there is another adequate remedy available to the court in the event that Respondent wrongfully fails or refuses to abide by the court's orders  namely contempt. Section 40-4-201(5), MCA; see, In re the Marriage of Robbins (1985), 219 Mont. 130, 711 P.2d 1347. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. TURNAGE, C.J., and HARRISON, GRAY, HUNT, TRIEWEILER and WEBER, JJ., concur.