Marriage of Healy
376 P.3d 99
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Stephanie and John Healy divorced in 2003 and entered a stipulated Final Parenting Plan and Property Settlement Agreement that set child support at $600/month and required annual college trust contributions by each parent and health insurance for the children.
- John consistently paid child support but never established the required college trust; he instead deposited funds into other accounts. Stephanie created savings accounts and paid her agreed contributions.
- In 2013 Stephanie sought administrative review by DPHHS/CSED to modify the 2003 support order; CSED calculated support under the Guidelines and served a proposed modification increasing support to $1,142/month (Jan 2014) after a 10-year lapse review.
- No party requested an administrative hearing within 20 days; CSED filed the modification with the District Court. While the matter was pending, Stephanie asked CSED (Aug 2014) to include private school tuition in the calculation; CSED recalculated to $2,048/month total.
- The District Court (Nov 2014 hearing) adopted CSED’s calculations, ordered John to pay $2,048/month retroactive to Feb 2014, required establishment of 529 accounts, and ordered both parents to deposit delinquent college-trust amounts with 10% interest. John appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Healy (Appellant) Argument | Healy (Appellee)/CSED Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to decide CSED modification | Court lacked jurisdiction because Stephanie did not show changed circumstances making original terms unconscionable and parties weren’t receiving Title IV-D services | CSED: district court must review agency-modified orders under § 40-5-277 after administrative action (10-year lapse triggered review) | Court had jurisdiction under § 40-5-277 to review the CSED modification |
| Use of past overtime earnings to calculate support | John testified overtime would end and court should use base wages only (no overtime) | CSED relied on documented multi-year earnings including overtime; John offered no objective proof overtime would cease | Court did not misapprehend evidence; adoption of CSED’s calculation based on past earnings was not clearly erroneous |
| Retroactive application of increased support to Feb 2014 | Objected to retroactive imposition of highest recalculated amount to Feb 2014 | CSED and District Court applied recalculation retroactively to the date administrative modification first became effective | Court abused discretion to apply $2,048 retroactively to Feb 2014; ruled $1,142/month effective Feb–Aug 2014 and $2,048/month effective Sept 2014 onward; remanded for revised order |
| 10% interest on delinquent college-trust contributions | Challenged imposition of statutory interest | District Court treated missed trust deposits as a money judgment subject to § 25-9-205 interest | Court correctly applied statutory post-judgment interest; interest order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Debuff, 310 Mont. 382, 50 P.3d 1070 (Mont. 2002) (standard of review for post-judgment interest)
- In re Marriage of Gibson, 206 Mont. 460, 671 P.2d 629 (Mont. 1983) (statutory interest applies to delinquent marital obligations)
- In re Marriage of Pospisil, 299 Mont. 527, 1 P.3d 364 (Mont. 2000) (application of post-judgment interest in dissolution contexts)
- Tubaugh v. Jackson (In re C.J.), 383 Mont. 197, 369 P.3d 1028 (Mont. 2016) (trial court credibility determinations reviewed deferentially)
- In re the Parenting of M.C., 378 Mont. 305, 343 P.3d 569 (Mont. 2015) (standard of review for parenting plan and child support findings)
- In re the Parenting of N.S., 360 Mont. 288, 253 P.3d 863 (Mont. 2011) (trial court’s role in assessing witness credibility)