In Re the Marriage of Johnson, 2011 MT 255

Shannon Johnson gave birth to C.I.J. in 2005; Walak was later identified as biological father by DNA.
Travis Johnson was named on C.I.J.'s birth certificate; Walak sought paternity testing after Walak intervened in dissolution.
Shannon and Travis reconciled and sought to exclude Walak from establishing a parental relationship with C.I.J.
District Court granted Walak parental rights in Order I issued Aug. 26, 2010.
Walak moved under Rule 59/60 to alter or amend, and the court vacated Order I and issued Order II after reconsideration.
Order II found it was in C.I.J.'s best interest to have a parental relationship with Walak, prompting the Johnsons’ appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in vacating Order I.	Walak contends the court lacked authority to vacate and relitigate.	Johnsons contend the court’s action was permissible to correct errors.	Yes; the court abused discretion and vacated without authority.

Nelson v. Driscoll, 285 Mont. 355 (1997) (identifies proper grounds for Rule 59 relief and manifest injustice)
Paternity of "Adam", 273 Mont. 351 (1995) (best interests and determination of parental relationship)
Hi-Tech Motors, Inc. v. Bombardier Motor Corp. of Am., 2005 MT 187 (2005) (Rule 59(g) not for relitigating old matters)
State ex rel. Vaughn v. District Court, 111 Mont. 552 (1941) (judgments cannot be modified to substitute new adjudication)
State ex rel. Truax v. Town of Lima, 121 Mont. 152 (1948) (policy against changing judgments to reflect a different decision)
Marriage of Cannon, 215 Mont. 272 (1985) (limits on revising judgments to correct judicial error)
Paternity of "Adam", 273 Mont. 351 (1995) (nonexistence of parent-child relationship as adjudicated fact)
Noteworthy related authority in opinion, — (—) (cited for framework on continuing jurisdiction and standards)