Parenting of T.J.E., 2021 MT 182N

Rachel and Travis Erickson married in 2008 and jointly petitioned for dissolution in July 2015; only Travis appeared at the final hearing and the November 27, 2015 decree awarded the marital home and mortgage debt to Travis and ordered Rachel to transfer her interest.
Rachel filed a December 2015 Rule 60 motion alleging fraud related to the parenting plan and sought to set aside that plan; she did not allege fraud as to the property division.
At a January 6, 2016 hearing, the court set aside the parenting plan but expressly stated it would leave the dissolution decree and property allocation "as is." The judge orally said Rachel would have the right to step in and "save the home from foreclosure" if Travis defaulted; the minute entry said Rachel would have the opportunity to assume the loan if he defaulted.
Travis defaulted on mortgage payments in late 2019; the IRS later withheld part of Rachel’s tax refund to cover defaulted payments.
Rachel moved in June 2020 to "reinforce" the January 6, 2016 order so she could assume the mortgage and occupy the home; the district court denied the motion, finding the January 2016 statements did not amend the final decree awarding property and mortgage to Travis.
Rachel appealed; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding the January 6, 2016 ruling set aside only the parenting plan and did not modify the property disposition in the final decree.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Jan. 6, 2016 oral ruling/minute entry amended the final dissolution decree to let Rachel assume the mortgage and occupy the home upon Travis's default	Rachel: The Jan. 6, 2016 statements and minute entry amended the decree or otherwise granted her the right to assume the loan and take the property on default	Travis: The final decree awarded the home and mortgage to him; Jan. 6 statements only recognized Rachel's ability to cure a default (a creditor/party remedy) and did not change ownership or possession rights	Court affirmed: Jan. 6, 2016 relieved only the parenting plan; it did not amend the final property disposition, so Rachel has no right to assume possession simply by curing the mortgage default

In re Marriage of Ruis, 399 Mont. 524, 462 P.3d 204 (discussing deference to district court's interpretation of its own orders)
Wagenman v. Wagenman, 384 Mont. 149, 376 P.3d 121 (Rule 60(b) fraud relief is an exception to finality where a party was wronged through no fault of its own)
In re Marriage of Laskey, 252 Mont. 369, 829 P.2d 935 (authority that property dispositions may be reopened under certain conditions)
In re Marriage of Simpson, 393 Mont. 340, 430 P.3d 999 (discussing limits and standards for modifying property dispositions after dissolution)