Garrett v. Willmarth
2016 MT 327N
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Garrett and Willmarth divorced after a 2007 marriage and share two children, G.W. (2005) and B.W. (2008).
- The parties initially had an equal custody Stipulated Final Parenting Plan (2011).
- Garrett sought and obtained a Stipulated Amended Parenting Plan (2013 Plan) placing the children with Willmarth in Montana during the school year and with Garrett in Texas during summers.
- Garrett later moved to enforce the 2013 Plan and then sought to amend it; a Standing Master held a bench trial and adopted a different Second Amended Final Parenting Plan (2015 Plan) reversing the school-year residence (children to live with Garrett in Texas during school year).
- Willmarth objected; the District Court reviewed the Standing Master’s Report, found several findings speculative or an abuse of discretion, vacated the Standing Master’s order adopting the 2015 Plan, and reinstated the 2013 Plan.
- Garrett appealed, arguing incorrect standard of review, that the District Court considered matters beyond Willmarth’s objections, and that the District Court improperly substituted its judgment for the Master’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review applied by District Court to Standing Master | Garrett: District Court reviewed factual findings for correctness instead of clear error | Willmarth: District Court applied correct standards (clear error for facts; correctness for law; abuse of discretion available) | Court: District Court applied correct standard of review and articulated it properly |
| Consideration of findings not specifically objected to | Garrett: District Court erred by considering findings beyond scope of objections (cites McMichael) | Willmarth: District Court may consider unobjected findings when making final determination | Court: No error; McMichael did not bar consideration of unobjected findings in this context |
| Whether District Court substituted its judgment for the Master | Garrett: District Court improperly substituted its judgment for the Master’s factual weighing | Willmarth: District Court conducted proper review and reversed only where Master abused discretion or made unsupported findings | Court: No abuse; District Court thoroughly reviewed record and reasonably vacated Master’s order |
| Vacating the Standing Master’s amended plan and reinstating 2013 Plan | Garrett: Master’s 2015 Plan should stand | Willmarth: 2015 Plan was unsupported/speculative and abused discretion | Court: Affirmed District Court — 2013 Plan reinstated; Standing Master’s adoption of 2015 Plan vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Patton, 378 Mont. 22, 340 P.3d 1242 (2015) (standard of review for masters: facts for clear error, conclusions of law for correctness, and abuse-of-discretion review where appropriate)
- In re G.J.A., 376 Mont. 212, 331 P.3d 835 (2014) (definition of "clearly erroneous" for review of master’s factual findings)
- Albrecht v. Albrecht, 311 Mont. 412, 56 P.3d 339 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- In re Marriage of McMichael, 333 Mont. 517, 143 P.3d 439 (2006) (limits on modifying findings or conclusions not specifically objected to)