Court Opinion

ID: 9507640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:24:24.141289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:21.837757
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL,
dissenting:
I would affirm the District Court.
It is a waste of time to remand this case to the District Court for another, hearing and entry of findings. The District Court’s findings reflect that the husband has no funds to pay increased child support, owes $50,000 with interest at 21-1/2% on two notes, that his expectations are for less income in 1982 than in 1981, and that much of what income he does have is in the form of unmarketable equities in construction projects.
In short, the husband is unable to make increased child support payments for lack of income. This is a sufficient basis for denying the wife’s petition for increased child support under section 40-4-208, MCA. A further remand for additional hearing and findings will not change this simple fact. The law does not require idle acts. Section 1-3-223, MCA.