MARRIAGE OF WILMOT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-345 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: CATHERINE COLLEEN WILP..IOT, Petitioner and Appellant, and HAROLD M. WILM.OT, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Keefer, Roybal, Hanson, Stacey and Jarussi, Billinqs, Montana For Respondent: Harold M. Wilmot, Pro Se, Huntley, Montana Craig R. Buehler, Lewistown, Montana Submitted on briefs: March 4, 1982 Decided: August 19, 1982 . r Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Court. Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the C a t h e r i n e C o l l e e n Wilmot ( t h e m o t h e r ) a p p e a l s f r o m a n order of the custody. Yellowstone District Court modifying The p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e was d i s s o l v e d i n Y e l l o w s t o n e County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . parties, County c u s t o d y of P u r s u a n t t o a n agreement between t h e t h e f o u r minor c h i l d r e n was i n t i t i a l l y awarded t o t h e mother. petitioned The f a t h e r , H a r o l d M. the t r i a l court Wilmot, l a t e r t o modify custody. The trial c o u r t m o d i f i e d c u s t o d y by a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h r e e o f t h e f o u r minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t n e r . After an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , the t r i a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t the father. c o u r t made i n behalf of The f i n d i n g s a r e c o n f l i c t i n g a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y , l e a v i n g no b a s i s f o r t h i s C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m e r i t s o f the issues presented f o r appeal. For t h a t r e a s o n , w e remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and we d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r f i n d i n g s of f a c t t h a t a r e determinative. In this o p i n i o n , we d e t a i l why t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t a s presented. The trial c o u r t made conflicting f i n d i n g s based e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r . tell from believed. the findings which evidence the on W e cannot trial court C o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s c a n n o t form t h e b a s i s f o r a reviewable order. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a f i n d i n g b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e f a t h e r t h a t " [ t l h e c h i l d r e n w e r e i n a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e d w i t h c l o t h e s and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s h e a l t h was e n d a n g e r e d by l a c k of c l e a n l i n e s s finding indicated adequate and that, clean." " [ t ]he c h i l d r e n ' s Another finding . . ." Another clothing stated, " [ t ]h a t was at times t h e c h i l d r e n ' s d r e s s h a s b e e n i n a d e q u a t e f o r w e a t h e r . . ." conditions W e c a n n o t determine t h e adequacy of f i n d - i n g s o f f a c t u n t i l w e know w h a t t h o s e f i n d i n g s a r e . F i n d i n g s which r e s t a t e c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e m u s t a l s o t e l l t h i s C o u r t how t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e s o l v e d t h a t c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e . were There regarding the mother's c o u r t gave with numerous no regard clear to and habits conflicting and activities. i n d i c a t i o n of these findings what activities. Nor made The trial it a c t u a l l y found can w e determine w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s t o be d e t r i mental t o t h e c h i l d r e n . The e s s e n c e of f i c a t i o n is t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of their environment with their t h i s c u s t o d y modi- t h e c h i l d r e n and w h e t h e r mother seriously endangers t h e i r p h y s i c a l , mental, moral or emotional h e a l t h . "The f a t h e r Three f i n d i n g s begin with t h e statement, testified was . . .", i n d i c a t i n g no more that a t h a t e a c h of t h e t h r e e f i n d i n g s restatement of evidence presented at trial. ". . . e v i d e n c e s h o u l d n o t be i n c l u d e d i n y o u r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . T h e r e s h o u l d be raw f a c t s when t h e t r i a l j u d g e f e e l s t h e y w i l l be h e l p f u l i n showing t h e b a s i s f o r h i s determination. There should be i n t e r m e d i a t e f a c t s ; t h e r e s h o u l d be u l t i 1 m a t e f a c t s . T h e r e s h o u l d be no e v i d e n c e . " San Diego Law Review 1 3 , 33 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . M e r e l y r e s t a t i n g e v i d e n c e a s i t was p r e s e n t e d w i t h no i n d i c a t i o n of the weight given t h a t e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t make a f i n d i n g of f a c t . Some o f from a home s o c i a l worker. the evidence presented evaluation report done a t the hearing by a came court-appointed Findings referring t o t h a t report begin with t h e w o r d s , "The home e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s "The r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s . . ." . . ." or, W c a n n o t t e l l what w e i g h t was e g i v e n t h a t r e p o r t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Again, f i n d i n g s must be s t a t e d a s f i n d i n g s and n o t a s a summary o r r e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e evidence. W h a v e e x p r e s s e d d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e w h o l e s a l e adope t i o n of p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . Tomaskie Mon t v. Tomaskie ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 416. Here, . , 625 P.2d 5 3 6 , 38 S t . R e p . t h e f i n d i n g s were s e l e c t e d from b o t h sets of proposed f i n d i n g s . A l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s were n o t a w h o l e s a l e a d o p t i o n of t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s o f t h e f i n d i n g s c h o s e n would h a v e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y w e r e i n c o n s i s t e n t and p r o v i d e d no b a s i s f o r review. I n J e n s e n v. J e n s e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 765, 38 St.Hep. Plont . , 629 P.2d 1109, we s t a t e d t h a t : "Our u l t i m a t e t e s t f o r t h e a d e q u a c y o f f i n d i n g s of f a c t is whether t h e y a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y c o m p r e h e n s i v e and p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i s s u e s t o p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r d e c i s i o n , and w h e t h e r t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e presented. " The f i n d i n g s p r e s e n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t d o n o t r e v e a l t h e b a s i c f a c t s upon which t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d . We enter remand findings evidence. t h i s c a s e and d i r e c t t h e of fact to resolve the trial court to conflicts in the W e concur: Chief Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.