Marriage of Steyh
2013 MT 175
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Julie filed for dissolution pro se after ~2 years of marriage and submitted a proposed equitable distribution that awarded William the Hobson Street property; William acknowledged service and was warned that failure to respond could result in default judgment.
- William did not answer; clerk entered default. A final hearing was set; judge ordered a pre-hearing meeting with a special master and mediator.
- At the final hearing both parties appeared; the court questioned the Hobson Street property and learned William had been served and had consulted an attorney before defaulting.
- The court adopted Julie’s proposed distribution but sua sponte ordered William to pay Julie $30,000 over three years to account for her pre-marriage equity in the Hobson Street home. Written decree followed.
- William moved for relief from judgment under M. R. Civ. P. 60(b); the motion was deemed denied by operation of rule. The district court later explained its reasoning but denied relief. William appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Julie's Argument | William's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly denied William’s Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the default-based dissolution decree | Decree valid; court has discretion to alter proposed distribution to achieve equitable division under § 40-4-202, MCA | Judgment void or relief warranted because court awarded $30,000 not requested in pleadings and William was surprised without meaningful notice or opportunity to contest | Reversed and remanded: denial was a slight abuse of discretion; court should set aside judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) for surprise and afford William a meaningful opportunity to be heard (then re-determine equitable division) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ptarmigan Owner’s Ass’n v. Alton, 369 Mont. 274 (2013) (appellate standard: slight abuse of discretion when reviewing denial of Rule 60(b))
- In re Marriage of Funk, 363 Mont. 352 (2012) (district court must consider § 40-4-202 factors when dividing marital assets)
- In re Marriage of Swanson, 321 Mont. 250 (2004) (broad district court discretion to equitably distribute marital property)