In Re the Marriage of Hart
2011 MT 102
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Scott and Margot Hart divorced in May 1993 and signed a Marital and Property Settlement Agreement allocating child support payments.
- In Oct 2000 Scott sought to amend parenting plan; Margot stated Scott was current on child support in responses and proposed findings.
- In Dec 2001 district court retained custody and residency rulings but did not modify child or medical support; Margot’s statements remained on record.
- In 2008 Margot received a lump-sum Social Security payment for each child and began dependent benefits; 2008–2009 back support dispute arose.
- District Court found Margot’s written statements were judicial admissions showing Scott was current through Sept 2001, and held Scott not in arrears; sanctions awarded against Margot for inconsistent pleadings; issues on attorney fees and cross-appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Margot's statements judicial admissions precluding back support? | Hart asserts statements were not admissions because issues differed. | Hart argues statements are not unequivocal admissions (or not adopted). | Statements are judicial admissions; preclude back support. |
| Did the court err by sanctioning Margot for inconsistent pleadings? | Hart contends sanctions were improper or misapplied. | Hart asserts sanctions supported by inconsistent pleadings. | Sanctions vacated as to attorney fees; need for further fee determination clarified by remand. |
| Did Scott owe Margot back child support? | Hart asserts back support liability from 1993 onward. | Hart contends overpayments offset any arrearage; expert testimony supports no back debt. | Scott did not owe back child support; overpaid, no arrearage. |
| Is Scott entitled to attorney fees under the settlement's prevailing party provision? | Scott is prevailing party for purposes of fees under the agreement. | Margot argues not all fees should be awarded; prevailing party status contested. | Scott entitled to fees; remand for full fee determination consistent with agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bitterroot Int'l Sys. v. Western Star Trucks, Inc., 336 Mont. 145, 153 P.3d 627 (Mont. 2007) (judicial admissions defined; binding conclusive effect)
- Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 301 Mont. 55, 7 P.3d 369 (Mont. 2000) (five-part test applicability to testimonial declarations)
- Denke v. Shoemaker, 347 Mont. 322, 198 P.3d 284 (Mont. 2008) (judicial admissions; unequivocal statements)
- Doig v. Cascaddan, 282 Mont. 105, 935 P.2d 268 (Mont. 1997) (prevailing party consideration for attorney fees)
- In re Marriage of Caras, 868 P.2d 615, 263 Mont. 377 (Mont. 1994) (attorney fees provisions in settlement agreements binding)