Court Opinion

ID: 9950305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:07:29.998941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:36.107004
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                     03/13/2024

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                      Case Number: DA 23-0138

                                        DA 23-0138

 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF                                                MAR 1 3 2024
 JACQUILINE STEINMANN,                                              Bowen Greenwoou
                                                                  Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                     iiitate of Montana
              Petitioner/Appellee,
                                                                     ORDER
       v.

 BRETT STEINMANN,

              Respondent/Appellant.

       Brett Steinmann (Brett) has filed a petition for a rehearing of our January 30, 2024,
decision affirming the District Court's order dividing the marital estate. Jackie opposes
the petition for rehearing.
       This Court will only consider a petition for rehearing if one of the following
circumstances are present: "[t]hat it overlooked some fact material to the decision; [][t]hat
it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the
case; or [] [t]hat its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed
by the supreme court." M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)(i)-(iii).
       Brett argues our decision overlooked his testimony that he put $200,000 of his own
assets towards the Shadow Circle hoithe before he and Jackie moved in and that there was
a double counting of some of Brett's business assets in the overall distribution. Brett
argues these facts were arbitrarily overlooked by the District Court and that they would
have had an impact on this Court's decision.
       Jackie responds these arguments were new arguments made in the reply brief and
even considering them on the merits, the District Court was within its discretion to
determine the amount of pre-marital credit Brett should be awarded in the properties and
its credit determination of his assets. Jackie maintains the court's decision was not arbitrary
and was based on the record.
       We did address the facts Brett raised concerning his contributions and determined
they would have no impact on our decision since the District Court is not obligated under
§ 40-4-202(1), MCA, to award any credit to a premarital interest and the District Court's
credit determination-was reasonable and based on the record. Further, the alleged double
counting of Brett' s business assets was raised only in his reply brief, contradicts the District
Court's final determination of Brett's value of his business, and could not have affected
the distribution of the properties that were the only disputed issue on appeal. Brett has not
met his burden under M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a) of showing a rehearing should be granted.
Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Brett Steinmann personally.
       DATED this )         —day of March, 2024.

                                                                  Chief Justice

                                                                     Justices

                                               2