Opinion ID: 883998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of medical expenses.

Text: Mark complains that the District Court failed to draw any conclusions from the fact that Mark is responsible for the children's medical expenses. He argues that the District Court erred because it did not give [him] credit for payment of those costs in its calculations. In general, a deduction is allowable for that portion of a parent's insurance costs which benefits the children. Chiovaro v. Tilton-Chiovaro (1991), 247 Mont. 185, 191, 805 P.2d 575, 578. However, only the parent's net cost for the children's insurance may be deducted, Chiovaro, 805 P.2d at 578. If the children's insurance does not cost the parent,anything, then he or she is not entitled to a deduction. 14 Mark assigns error to the District Court's failure to allow him a deduction in consideration of his payment for health insurance. In fact, however, he doesn't pay for the children's health insurance; Roxanne does, through the policy she maintains for her business. Mark explains that this arrangement is economically advantageous because it would be very difficult for him to obtain insurance for the children independently. We have no quarrel with the arrangements made. Mark is free to fulfill his responsibilities in any way he chooses, so long as he does in fact fulfill them. It is indisputable, however, that Mark incurs no out-of-pocket expense to obtain the children's insurance. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in refusing to grant him a deduction for such expenses. Mark argues that the District Court erred in its treatment of the parties' medical expenses as well. At the hearing, Tanya testified that her worsening health results in between $2000 and $2500 in medical expenses each year. Mark attempted to introduce an exhibit showing that he expends approximately $900 each year for his own medical expenses, but the District Court refused the exhibit. On appeal, Mark asserts that the District Court erred in considering Tanya's medical needs while refusing to consider his. This argument is without merit. While the District Court refused Mark's proposed exhibit, it nevertheless allowed a $900 deduction for his medical expenses. This deduction appears in the Child Support Guidelines worksheet prepared and released by the District Court and accompanying its order. 15 3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by refusing to admit one of Mark's proposed exhibits? Mark asserts that the District Court erred in not allowing his exhibit regarding his medical expenses. Regardless of whether or not the exhibit was properly refused, the refusal did not prejudice Mark. Apparently, the District Court considered the substance of the exhibit despite having refused it at trial. The proposed exhibit lists various checks written to cover medical expenses and totalling $921. As noted above, the District Court gave Mark a $900 deduction for his medical expenses. Since Mark received the benefit of the District Court's consideration of the information contained in the exhibit, its formal refusal at the hearing did not substantially affect his rights. Had the exhibit been allowed, it would not have changed the financial allocation of support. Therefore, even if the District Court erred in refusing the exhibit, the error was harmless. 4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by limiting the time allowed to the parties for the presentation of evidence? At the beginning of the hearing, the District Court informed the parties that each would be given 45 minutes to present evidence. Mark now asserts that the time limit prejudiced his ability to present all the evidence he desired. It is well-settled that this Court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Erler v. Erler (1993), 261 Mont. 65, 73, 862 P.Zd 12, 18 (citing In re Marriage of Starks (1993), 259 Mont. 138, 855 P.2d 527). Moreover, a party who fails 16 to object to an alleged error during a trial or hearing is precluded from raising the issue on appeal. Hando v. PPG Industries, Inc. (1995), 272 Mont. 146, 150, 900 P.2d 281, 284. At the hearing, the District Court clearly notified the parties that each would have 45 minutes in which to present evidence and testimony. Mark's counsel indicated that probably that [was] fair. At the end of the hearing, the District Court expressly asked Mark's attorney, Do you desire to submit anything further? She replied, I don't. I think I've submitted everything. Mark's attorney did not object to the time limit imposed at the hearing; on the contrary, she indicated such a limit was fine. Because no objection was made, and because this issue was raised for the first time on appeal, we will not consider it. Finally, Tanya asks this Court to impose costs and sanctions against Mark for bringing a frivolous appeal. We do not agree the appeal was frivolous and decline to impose costs or sanctions. Affirmed in part and reversed in p,art. We Concur: 17