Tummarello v. C.S.E.D.
2016 MT 265N
Mont.2016Background
- Tummarello's 2010 Montana dissolution decree required $1,667 monthly child support for two children.
- In 2014, an administrative hearing addressed income withholding; CSED was found to be withholding correctly under the district court order.
- One child became emancipated, affecting the ongoing support calculation.
- February 4, 2015: Twenty-First Judicial District Court clarified the 2010 order, stating $1,667 totaled $909 for the older child and $758 for the younger.
- CSED terminated the prior order and began collection under the clarifying order.
- March 2015: Tummarello petitioned for judicial review; the District Court later dismissed as moot due to the clarifying order rendering the original petition moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the petition moot, depriving subject-matter jurisdiction? | Tummarello contends the original review petition remained ripe for review. | CSED argues the clarifying order mooted the issue and divested jurisdiction. | Yes; the district court correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reichert v. State, 365 Mont. 92, 278 P.3d 455 (2012 MT) (judicial power limited to justiciable controversies; mootness requires dismissal)
- Seubert v. Seubert, 301 Mont. 382, 13 P.3d 365 (2000 MT) (mootness doctrine applies to non-justiciable questions)
- In re Marriage of Sampley, 379 Mont. 131, 347 P.3d 1281 (2015 MT) (de novo review of district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
- Montanans Against Assisted Suicide v. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 379 Mont. 11, 347 P.3d 1244 (2015 MT) (mootness and exceptions framework discussed)
- In re Mental Health of D.V., 340 Mont. 319, 174 P.3d 503 (2007 MT) (exceptional mootness considerations noted)