Opinion ID: 884607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court err in considering $1,000 per month income earned by Andy as trustee of his parents' trusts?

Text: ¶ 17 Andy argues that the District Court erred in considering the $1,000 per month income he received as trustee because he was no longer receiving the trustee fee and had not throughout the preceding year. We review a district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. Daines v. Knight (1995), 269 Mont. 320, 324, 888 P.2d 904, 906. ¶ 18 The District Court found that Andy's annual salary and co-trustee fee from the trusts is $12,000. Even though Husband did not get this fee in January, 1997, the trusts continue to provide him for his personal use with a 1994 4-wheel drive pickup and fuel, oil, maintenance and licensing for the same.... [H]e remains co-trustee of his deceased father's trust and should be receiving the fee and salary therefrom. ¶ 19 Sometime after the District Court entered its findings of fact, Andy resigned his position as trustee, apparently under pressure from his family. However, at trial, Andy testified as follows: Q [by counsel for Andy]: Now with regard to the trust income, you have been receiving a thousand dollars a month from the trust as the trustees fee; is that correct? A [by Andy]: That's correct. Q: Are you still receiving this money? A: I haven't received it this year at all, no. Q: What is your family's attitude towards your continuation as the trustee of the trust? A: Well I had a discussion last night, and they want me to resign from the trust. Although he eventually resigned, as of the date of trial, Andy was still acting as a co-trustee of the John G. Beadle Revocable Trust. Therefore, regardless of whether he was actually receiving it, Andy was entitled to $1,000 per month in compensation. ¶ 20 We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Andy earned $1,000 per month in income as trustee based on the evidence presented at trial. Further, in considering Andy's motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rules 59(g) and 60(b), M.R.Civ.P., the District Court was not required to consider the Resignation As Trustee document that Andy attached to his reply brief. At the time of trial, Andy was serving as co-trustee, and this Court will not consider subsequent events in reviewing the District Court's findings. If, in fact, circumstances have substantially changed since the time of trial, § 40-4-208, MCA, sets forth the procedure for modifying a maintenance award.