Marriage of Woehler and Messer
2017 MT 153N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Teresa and Paul divorced in Cardiff, U.K.; Cardiff court ordered child support (initially £450, later a 2012 Provisional Order for £500/month) and later issued a 2013 Contact Order granting Teresa leave to relocate to Montana and stating Father consents to Montana jurisdiction.
- Paul moved to Quebec in 2012, stopped paying support, ignored Cardiff orders, and did not challenge them in the U.K.
- Teresa relocated with the children to West Glacier, Montana, registered the Cardiff Contact Order with Flathead County in 2014, and later filed a Verified Petition (Dec. 2014) seeking contempt, child support enforcement, parenting plan modification, fees, and other relief; she also filed a copy (not a certified copy) of the Provisional Order.
- Paul voluntarily appeared and filed counter-requests (including a contempt petition alleging Teresa violated the Contact Order) and disputed the district court’s treatment of the Provisional Order, child support calculations, and fee award.
- After a four-day trial, the District Court entered findings and awarded delinquent support, calculated child support, and ordered Paul to pay one-half of Teresa’s reasonable attorney fees; Paul appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Woehler) | Defendant's Argument (Messer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court could treat the Cardiff Provisional Order as enforceable/delinquent support | Teresa: Provisional Order reflects enforceable support and entitlement to arrears | Paul: Provisional Order was not properly registered/never converted to a final order in Montana; court erred treating it as final | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supported treating and enforcing the Provisional Order; no reversible error |
| Properness of registration procedure for foreign support order (certified copy requirement) | Teresa: filed copy and did not strictly follow certification but Paul did not object to filing method after service | Paul: Registration was procedurally defective (no certified copy) so order should not have been enforced | Court: Procedural irregularity did not bar enforcement where Paul failed to timely object and record supported enforcement |
| Child support calculation (exchange rates, inclusion of anticipated medical and child care costs) | Teresa: court used appropriate calculations including her anticipated medical and child care costs | Paul: Court used incorrect exchange rates and improperly included anticipated medical and child care costs | Court: Calculations not clearly erroneous; court’s factual findings upheld |
| Attorney fees award to Teresa | Teresa: entitled to fees because of Paul’s failure to pay support and needless motions | Paul: court should have reduced fees for Teresa’s procedural errors and unfounded motions | Court: Award of one-half of Teresa’s reasonable fees was within discretion given Paul’s unjustified conduct; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Healy v. Healy, 384 Mont. 31, 376 P.3d 99 (Mont. 2016) (standard of review for findings in parenting and child support orders)
- Wohl v. City of Missoula, 369 Mont. 108, 300 P.3d 1119 (Mont. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for attorney-fee determinations)
- State v. Cybulski, 349 Mont. 429, 204 P.3d 7 (Mont. 2009) (court will not perform legal research for pro se litigants)
- In re Marriage of Frick, 359 Mont. 296, 249 P.3d 67 (Mont. 2011) (deference to district court credibility determinations)