Marriage of Buck (Larson)
2017 MT 84N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Susan Larson and Alan Buck divorced in 1991; their Property Settlement Agreement (incorporated into the decree) addressed a preexisting structured settlement that paid $500/month for life.
- Under the Agreement Alan assigned his $250/month share to Susan as a credit on child support while their daughter remained in school; when she finished school Alan would regain the $250.
- Daughter graduated from college in 2011 and later enrolled in a one-year online graduate program; dispute arose whether Alan’s assignment terminated when she finished college or upon completion of graduate studies.
- In April 2016 Alan moved to reopen and to terminate the $250 assignment; a show-cause hearing occurred May 10, 2016; Susan was out of state but was represented by counsel who participated and presented testimony from Susan’s husband.
- District Court held that the assignment ended in 2012 (post-college/interim years not covered), terminated the assignment going forward, and ordered Susan to reimburse Alan $12,000 for payments from June 1, 2012–May 21, 2016.
- Susan appealed claiming due-process violations (inadequate notice/absence at hearing and denial of continuance) and asserted an alleged oral agreement permanently assigning the $250 to her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Larson) | Defendant's Argument (Buck) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Susan was denied due process by hearing being held in her absence and the court refusing her continuance | Larson: lacked adequate notice and was deprived opportunity to be present | Buck: Larson had notice, was represented by counsel who proceeded and presented evidence | Court: No due process violation; Larson had notice and opportunity to be heard via counsel |
| Whether an oral agreement altered the written Property Settlement Agreement to permanently assign payments to Susan | Larson: Alan promised permanent assignment in exchange for not providing further financial assistance | Buck: No final paperwork or completed agreement; no alteration of unambiguous written contract | Court: Did not consider new arguments raised first on appeal; evidence did not establish an agreement changing the unambiguous written terms; contract interpretation applied as written |
| Proper interpretation of when the assignment terminates (upon college graduation vs. end of graduate program) | Larson: assignment should continue while daughter in graduate school (so termination later) | Buck: assignment ended after college/interim years and did not extend through graduate program | Court: Interpreting the written Agreement, court concluded assignment ended in 2012 (not during interim before graduate program) and terminated assignment going forward |
| Whether court could order retroactive reimbursement to Alan for payments made after termination without prior notice/request | Larson: reimbursement order was improper because she had no notice or ability to contest monetary relief | Buck: sought termination (but did not request retroactive monetary relief) | Court: Reversed reimbursement award because Alan did not request monetary relief and Larson lacked notice and opportunity to contest retroactive repayment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Fishbaugh, 52 P.3d 395 (Mont. 2002) (notice and opportunity to be heard are essential due-process elements)
- Grizzly Sec. Armored Express, Inc. v. Bancard Servs., 384 P.3d 68 (Mont. 2016) (unambiguous contract language controls interpretation)
- In re Marriage of Healy, 376 P.3d 99 (Mont. 2016) (standard of review: findings of fact for clear error; conclusions of law for correctness)
- Dorwart v. Caraway, 966 P.2d 1121 (Mont. 1998) (due-process notice requirements for affording opportunity to present objections)
- Baston v. Baston, 240 P.3d 643 (Mont. 2010) (court may not award damages sua sponte beyond claims pleaded without fair notice)
- In re Marriage of Steyh, 305 P.3d 50 (Mont. 2013) (district court abused discretion by awarding relief beyond what was requested without notice)