In Re the Marriage of Crowley
2014 MT 42
Mont.2014Background
- Dennis and Amber Crowley married July 2007 and have one child born in 2008.
- Dissolution petition filed February 18, 2011; interim parenting plan later modified due to distance and Amber's employment concerns.
- A guardian ad litem was appointed; a 2-day trial occurred in November 2012 with final decree issued May 24, 2013.
- District Court designated Amber as primary residential parent with Dennis receiving liberal parenting time; ordered various property and debt allocations.
- The court awarded Amber past-due support, maintenance, and Amber's attorney’s fees; Dennis appeals on property division, arrears, maintenance, parenting plan, and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the marital estate properly calculated and equitably distributed? | Dennis argues the net worth was not properly determined and several assets/debts were mischaracterized. | Amber contends the court’s distribution was appropriate given the assets and liabilities. | Remanded for further findings; property apportionment reversed. |
| Did the court properly award past-due family support arrears? | Dennis contends retroactive maintenance/arrears beyond statutory authority. | Amber argues statutory authority allowed retroactive designation of temporary support; evidence supports need. | Affirmed for past-due support award. |
| Was the maintenance award properly supported by statutory factors? | Dennis challenges absence of explicit findings on §40-4-203 factors and property impact. | Amber asserts need for maintenance based on Amber's limited employment prospects and expenses. | Remanded for further findings consistent with statute; maintenance order reversed. |
| Was Amber properly designated the primary residential parent and was Dennis afforded adequate parenting time? | Dennis argues the parenting time schedule is inconsistent with findings and local rule guidance. | Amber contends she and Dennis are fit; primary custody with Amber serves child's best interests. | Affirmed primary designation; remanded for additional findings on parenting time allocation. |
| Were costs and attorney’s fees properly awarded? | Dennis contends no hearing on reasonableness; fee award unsupported by evidence. | Amber asserts trial testimony supported the award. | Reversed; remanded for reconsideration of reasonableness with proper procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Funk, 363 Mont. 352 (Mont. 2012) (broad discretion in asset/liability apportionment; need complete findings)
- In re Rudolf, 338 Mont. 226 (Mont. 2007) (include debt in estate; equity assessment required)
- In re Dowd, 261 Mont. 319 (Mont. 1993) (credit for payments during pendency not always required)
- In re Harkin, 299 Mont. 298 (Mont. 2000) (attorney's fees require hearing; reasonableness evidence)
- Caplis v. Caplis, 321 Mont. 450 (Mont. 2004) (implied findings may be used if consistent with express findings)
- In re Epperson, 326 Mont. 142 (Mont. 2005) (custody factors; nonexhaustive list; essential facts must be found)