Opinion ID: 883902
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the District Court err by substantively adopting Joe's proposed findings of fact?

Text: The District Court adopted many of Joe's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as its own in this case. Marillen asserts this adoption was error. As we have repeatedly noted, adoption of one party's proposed findings and conclusions is not in itself grounds for reversal. In re Marriage of Stufft (1996), 276 Mont. 454, 457, 916 P.2d 767, 769 (citing In re Marriage of Purdy (1988), 234 Mont. 502, 764 P.2d 857). If proposed findings and conclusions are adopted by the court, they become the court's own and, as such, are reviewed for clear error and correctness of law. Stufft, 916 P.2d at 769 (citing Daines v. Knight (1995), 269 Mont. 320, 888 P.2d 904; and Kreger v. Francis (1995), 271 Mont. 444, 898 P.2d 672). Here, we have reviewed the District Court's findings of fact and judge that they are supported by the record and are not otherwise clearly erroneous. A thorough review of the record in this case reveals no reversible error. The decision of the District Court is affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and TRIEWEILER, LEAPHART and ERDMANN, JJ., concur.