Marriage of Axelberg, 2017 MT 178N

Delynn and Tracy Axelberg divorced in May 2014; they have two minor children. The District Court previously entered a decree affirmed on appeal in 2015.
Post-decree, the parties disputed distribution of marital assets, allocation/reimbursement of childcare and maintenance expenses, and compliance with the Final Parenting Plan. Both parties litigated pro se (each is a licensed attorney).
Multiple post-decree motions and a status conference occurred in 2015; hearings were continued at Delynn’s request for medical reasons and to obtain counsel.
At the November 16, 2015 hearing Delynn requested another continuance for illness; the court proceeded, allowed evidence, invited later written argument, and later dismissed some motions without prejudice while permitting renewal.
The District Court found the parties impeded distribution of the marital estate, appointed a receiver to carry out distribution, awarded partial reimbursement of childcare expenses to Delynn for a defined period, and denied Delynn’s motion for a new trial.
Delynn appealed, arguing due-process violations (denial of continuance, retroactive child-support modifications, improper receiver appointment, and erroneous denial of a Rule 59 motion); the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Delynn)	Defendant's Argument (Tracy)	Held
Denial of continuance / due process	Court forced hearing despite her medical incapacity and refused a fair hearing	Court accommodated earlier continuance, held hearing, accepted evidence, and allowed additional briefing	No abuse of discretion; court did not unfairly prejudice Delynn and provided opportunity to renew motions
Retroactive modification / childcare reimbursement	Court retroactively changed child-support/expense obligations and awarded reimbursement without proper hearing; against best interests	Court applied Final Parenting Plan terms and evidence to award limited reimbursement for a defined period	No abuse of discretion; court reasonably awarded reimbursement March 1, 2012–March 10, 2016 based on plan and evidence
Appointment of receiver	Receiver was appointed without proper application/hearing and contrary to Montana statutes	Parties had impeded distribution; appointment was authorized to carry judgment into effect and was discussed at hearing	Appointment valid under §27-20-102(5), MCA; court acted within discretion after raising and considering receivership at hearing
Denial of new trial (M. R. Civ. P. 59(e))	Motion for new trial was proper to challenge the order	Order was interlocutory (post-decree enforcement/modification); Rule 59 does not apply to non-judgment interlocutory orders	Denial proper: challenged order was interlocutory and Rule 59 relief was not available

In re Marriage of Axelberg, 378 Mont. 528, 347 P.3d 1225 (2015) (prior appeal affirming district court decree in this divorce matter)
In re J.S.W., 369 Mont. 12, 303 P.3d 741 (2013) (district-court procedural-discretion and standards for plenary review of constitutional claims)
State v. Couture, 357 Mont. 398, 240 P.3d 987 (2010) (discussion of district court discretion to control proceedings)
Steer, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 245 Mont. 470, 803 P.2d 601 (1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
Martin v. BNSF Ry. Co., 379 Mont. 423, 352 P.3d 598 (2015) (definition of abuse of discretion)