Court Opinion

ID: 9956828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 22:05:18.09592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:54.905226
License: Public Domain

04/02/2024

                                            DA 23-0118
                                                                                           Case Number: DA 23-0118

               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                            2024 MT 69

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

NANCY M. MEINHARDT, f/k/a STEWARD,

                Petitioner and Appellant,

         and

JOSEPH H. STEWARD,

                Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM:            District Court of the First Judicial District,
                        In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADR-2019-545
                        Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

                 For Appellant:

                        Michelle H. Vanisko, Hinshaw & Vanisko, PLLC, Helena, Montana

                 For Appellee:

                        David B. Gallik, Gallik Law Office, PLLC, Helena, Montana

                                                    Submitted on Briefs: March 6, 2024

                                                              Decided: April 1, 2024

Filed:

                                  ' 4,--6%--‘f
                        __________________________________________
                                          Clerk
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1       Nancy M. Steward (Nancy) appeals from the Order on Motion to Enforce and

Motion for Contempt issued by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County,

on October 27, 2022 in which the District Court ordered the modification of child support

effective January 1, 2021. Nancy contests the January 1, 2021, commencement date for

the modified child support, asserting such should not have commenced until June 1, 2021,

the month after she received notification from the Montana Child Support Services

Division (CSSD) of the modified amount.1 We affirm.

¶2       We restate the issue on appeal as follows:

         Whether the District Court abused its discretion in commencing modified child
         support prior to Nancy receiving actual notification of the modified child support
         order and amount from CSSD.

                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3       The parties were married in 2006 and divorced on October 26, 2020. They have

two minor children. At the time the court issued its Decree of Dissolution, it also adopted

the parties’ Stipulated Parenting Plan (SPP). With regard to child support, the SPP

provides:

         9. CHILD SUPPORT:
         Child Support shall be addressed through the Montana Child Support
         Enforcement Division and both parties agree to immediately re-open their
         case at the point where it was dismissed due to a determination of family
         support already ordered by this Court and cooperate with Montana Child
         Support Enforcement to seek a determination of child support. Until Montana
         Child Support Enforcement Division makes a determination on the amount
         of child support and issues their own order of support, Respondent shall

1
    The parties were served with CSSD’s notice and modification order on May 6, 2021.

                                                2
       begin making monthly child support payments in the amount of $1680.00 to
       Nancy on the 1st of each month, beginning on November 1, 2020.

¶4     After the court adopted the parties’ SPP, on November 6, 2020,2 Joseph Steward

(Joseph) filed a request with CSSD in which he “moves [CSSD] for its Order setting a

hearing to determine child support”—the functional equivalent to filing a motion for

modification of child support. This request was served on Nancy through her counsel

consistent with the requirements of service provided for under M. R. Civ Pro. 5(b)(1)—

permitting service of counsel by mail to a represented party’s attorney. When no hearing

was scheduled, Joseph filed a second request for hearing with CSSD on January 11, 2021,

which was also appropriately served on Nancy through her counsel. On January 14, 2021,

CSSD issued an income withholding notice for $1,8203 per month to Joseph’s employer.

Upon receiving a financial affidavit from Joseph, CSSD amended the withholding to

$1,680 per month on February 24, 2021, and on May 6, 2021, issued a modification order

and notice determining Joseph’s child support obligation to be $1,248 per month—$624

per child per month. Nancy then sought a modification hearing with CSSD.

¶5     On September 13, 2021, Nancy filed a Combined Motion to Enforce and Motion

for Contempt.     On October 29, 2021, CSSD filed a Motion to Approve Proposed

2
  The parties have referred to Joseph’s request for hearing to determine child support having been
made on November 6 and, at other times, assert it was made on November 9, 2020. For
clarification, the request was sent to CSSD and served by mail upon Nancy through counsel on
November 6, 2020, and received by CSSD on November 9, 2020. As such, Joseph’s request is
considered to have been made on November 6, 2020.
3
 The $1,820 per month was for current child support of $1,680 per month plus $140 per month in
past-due support.

                                                3
Modification in which it sought the District Court to approve and adopt the Modification

Notice and Order it previously issued May 6, 2021. Joseph, in turn, filed an objection to

CSSD’s determination of child support. The District Court set hearing on these motions

and objection. At the outset of the hearing on September 26, 2022, the parties indicated

they resolved their dispute as to the monthly child support amount and the only issue

remaining as to child support was the start date. The parties further advised that the $1,248

per month child support amount upon which they agreed was calculated by CSSD, and that

CSSD agreed to prepare the modification order after the hearing with the start date to be

determined by the District Court. Joseph sought the District Court to direct CSSD to

calculate child support to commence a reasonable time after November 9, 2020, when he

filed his original request for calculation of child support and a hearing with CSSD. Nancy

sought the District Court to direct CSSD to calculate child support to commence June 1,

2021, but later stipulated to commencing the modification April 1, 2021. In its Order on

Motion to Enforce and Motion for Contempt the District Court ordered the modification of

child support effective January 1, 2021. Nancy then filed a Rule 59 Motion to Alter or

Amend Judgment in which she asserted, citing § 40-4-208(1), MCA, and Healy v. Healy,

2016 MT 154, ¶ 32, 384 Mont. 31, 376 P.3d 99, the District Court made a manifest error

of law as “the [child support] modification can only affect payments accruing after CSSD

provides actual notice of its motion for modification to all parties.” Nancy asserted the

modification could not commence prior to May 6, 2021, without stipulation of the parties

                                             4
and reiterated that she did stipulate at hearing to the start date of April 2021.4 The District

Court denied the motion as to child support.5 Nancy appealed.

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6     We review a district court’s conclusions of law for correctness, and a district court’s

findings of fact for clear error. In re Marriage of Simpson, 2018 MT 281, ¶ 10, 393 Mont.

340, 430 P.3d 999. We review a district court’s factual findings pertaining to determination

of child support to determine if they are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Miller, 2022

MT 110, ¶ 14, 409 Mont. 29, 511 P.3d 307. We review child support awards, including

retroactive awards, for an abuse of discretion. Miller, ¶ 14. A district court abuses its

discretion if it “acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment” or

“exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” Simpson, ¶ 10 (citation

omitted).

                                        DISCUSSION

¶7     Whether the District Court abused its discretion in commencing modified child
       support prior to Nancy receiving actual notification of the modified child support
       amount and order from CSSD.

¶8     Nancy asserts that under § 40-4-208, MCA, and Healy, child support may only be

modified subsequent to her receipt of actual notice of the CSSD modification notice and

4
 Thus, by commencing the modification on January 1, 2021, rather than April 1, 2021, the total
amount in dispute is $1,296. We speculate this amount to be commensurate, if not less than, the
cost of the appeal.
5
 In her Rule 59 Motion, Nancy also asserted the court failed to address certain medical expenses.
The court acknowledged it had overlooked the issue of unreimbursed medical costs and as such
addressed those in its January 17, 2023, Order on Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.

                                               5
order which occurred on May 6, 2021. Joseph asserts § 40-4-208, MCA, supports

modification of the court’s original child support order for any installments accruing

subsequent to November 9, 2020, when he served Nancy notice of his request for hearing

on child support modification with CSSD.6 He further asserts Healy does not support

Nancy’s position.

¶9     Section 40-4-208(1), MCA, provides that a decree may be modified by a court as to

child support “only as to installments accruing subsequent to actual notice to the parties of

the motion for modification.” Nancy does not assert how, independent of Healy, § 40-4-

208(1), MCA, precludes modification of child support prior to CSSD’s motion and

issuance of an order setting forth the modified child support amount when Joseph

well-prior to that time, brought request to modify child support and served it on her. It is

not disputed that Nancy, through her attorney, was served on November 6, 2020, with

actual notice of Joseph’s initial request of CSSD to set a hearing on modification of his

child support obligation.7 From his November 6 request, it is clear Nancy was put on notice

that Joseph sought to immediately modify his child support obligation. Thus, pursuant to

the plain, unambiguous language of § 40-4-208(1), MCA, the court had the statutory

6
  Although Joseph asserts the District Court could have modified his child support obligation to
commence October 1, 2021, he does not appeal the court’s determination to modify child support
commencing January 1, 2021. As such, we do not address modification of child support prior to
January 1, 2021.
7
 It is also undisputed that Nancy was also served with Joseph’s second request for hearing to
modify his child support obligation on January 11, 2021.

                                               6
authority to modify Joseph’s child support obligation for installments accruing subsequent

to November 6, 2020.

¶10    Nancy primarily relies on Healy in asserting child support may only be modified

subsequent to her receipt of actual notice of the CSSD modification notice and order.

Nancy asserts Healy requires modified child support awards may only begin after the

parties receive actual notice of the modified child support amount. Joseph asserts there is

no language in Healy that limits a district court’s ability to order the effective date of a

modification of child support only to when CSSD’s order or motion is issued. Joseph

further asserts Healy confirms the District Court’s statutory authority to make CSSD’s

child support modification order retroactive to when Nancy was given actual notice of

Joseph’s request for modification.

¶11    In Healy, the parties entered into a stipulated parenting plan which was approved

and ordered by the court requiring father to pay $600 per month in child support. Ten years

later, mother applied to CSSD for review and modification of child support. CSSD

recalculated child support to $1,142 per month and, pursuant to Admin. R. M. 37.62.2119,

provided notice of its proposed order, advising the parties they had 20 days to object and

if no objection was submitted, CSSD would submit the order to the district court for

approval and it would become effective February 2014. Neither party objected and CSSD

filed its modification motion with the district court March 24, 2014, seeking court approval

of its modification order. Father then filed an objection with the district court. While the

hearing on father’s objection was pending, mother learned that father was not paying their

daughter’s school tuition as he previously agreed to do. As such, in June 2014 she filed an

                                             7
application with CSSD to recalculate father’s child support to include the tuition. In

August 2014, CSSD submitted a revised modification order and notice recalculating

father’s child support to $2,048 per month. Father objected. In April 2015, the district

court modified father’s child support obligation to $2,048 retroactively to February 2014.

Neither party appealed the modified child support amount or the commencement date of

the modification.

¶12   Father, however, appealed on other grounds asserting the district court did not have

jurisdiction to decide CSSD’s motion as there was no showing of changed circumstances

as required by § 40-4-208(2), MCA; the district court misapprehended the evidence as to

father’s future income potential; and the district court erred in imposing a 10% interest

penalty on the parents’ required College Trust contributions. On appeal, although this

Court affirmed all of father’s appeal issues, based on the administrative requirements for

CSSD set forth in Admin. R. M. 37.62.2119, this Court sua sponte determined the district

court was only authorized to impose child support of $1,142 per month effective in

February 2014 collectible through August 2014 and, based on CSSD’s recalculation and

re-notice in August 2014, the district court was only authorized to require child support

payments of $2,048 per month beginning in September 2018. The Court made no analysis

of § 40-4-208(1), MCA, nor of the district court’s authority specifically provided for in

Admin. R. M. 37.62.2119(5)—“The [CSSD] order shall be effective the first day of the

month following the issuance of the Notice of Proposed Modification, or as determined by

the court.” Admin. R. M. 37.62.2119(5) (emphasis added).

                                            8
¶13    It is clear this Court in Healy did not appreciate or consider the broad statutory

authority vested to district courts to modify child support as to “installments accruing

subsequent to actual notice to the parties of the motion for modification.” Section 40-4-

208(1), MCA. The Court considered the administrative notice requirements required of

CSSD, but then failed to consider or address that Admin. R. M. 37.62.2119(5) permits the

court discretion to determine when the CSSD modification order becomes effective. Given

the Court’s sua sponte consideration of the effective date of modification together with the

lack of consideration of a district court’s broad statutory and administrative authority to

determine the effective date of modification of child support, we do not determine Healy

to provide binding precedence in this case. Further, Healy is overruled to the extent it

could be interpreted to limit a district court’s authority to modify child support installments

accruing after the party’s receipt of actual notice of the CSSD modification notice and order

when that party was appropriately put on notice of the other party’s pursuit of modification

of child support well prior to CSSD’s notice and order.

¶14    Here, there is no dispute Nancy was on actual notice of Joseph’s request to modify

child support as early as November 6, 2020. Further, at a hearing before the District Court,

she had full opportunity to present evidence as to any circumstances making it inequitable

for Joseph’s child support modification to be retroactive to as early as October 2020, the

first month in which child support accrued subsequent to her actual notice of Joseph’s

request to modify child support. From our review of the record Nancy did not present any

such evidence, but instead argued § 40-4-208(1), MCA, and Healy required the court to

                                              9
make the modification effective no earlier than June 2021—or April 1, 2021, as she had

stipulated.

¶15    Nancy next asserts the District Court’s finding “that both parties wanted the child

support modification to take effect within a reasonable time of November 9, 2020” was a

misapprehension of the evidence. From our review of the record, we do not agree. At the

outset of the hearing on September 26, 2022, the parties indicated the amount of child

support was resolved and the only disputed issue remaining as to child support was the start

date. The parties advised that CSSD had calculated the $1,248 per month amount they

agreed to and, further, that CSSD agreed to prepare the modification order after the hearing

using the start date determined by the District Court. Joseph sought the District Court to

direct CSSD to calculate child support to commence a reasonable time after service of his

November 2020 request to CSSD. Nancy sought the District Court to direct CSSD to

calculate child support to commence June 1, 2021, but later stipulated to a commencement

date no earlier than April 1, 2021. The District Court’s finding “that both parties wanted

the child support modification to take effect within a reasonable time of November 9, 2020”

was more of an interpretation of the court’s understanding the parties disputed the onset

date and its authority prescribed by § 40-4-208(1), MCA, rather than a finding based on

the evidentiary presentation of the parties. Given the discussion between counsel and the

District Court at the outset of the September 26, 2022 hearing, the District Court did not

misapprehend the parties’ remaining dispute. From our review of the record, the District

Court correctly interpreted its statutory authority to modify child support and applied it to

the undisputed facts. There was no abuse of discretion.

                                             10
                                     CONCLUSION

¶16    The District Court correctly interpreted the law, modified child support pursuant to

agreement of the parties and CSSD, and appropriately determined—pursuant to § 40-4-

208(1), MCA—after notice to Nancy of Joseph’s request to modify child support, when to

commence the modified child support. To the extent Healy could be interpreted to limit a

district court’s authority to modify child support installments accruing after a party’s

receipt of actual notice of the CSSD modification notice and order when that party was

appropriately put on notice of the other party’s pursuit of modification of child support

well prior to CSSD’s notice and order or motion, it is overruled.

¶17    Affirmed.

                                                 /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ JIM RICE

                                            11