MARRIAGE OF SANBURN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-048 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 APPEAL FROM: District Court of the In and for the County The Honorable Kenneth Sixteenth of Powder R. Wilson, Judicial River, Judge District, presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Jerrold Billings, For L. Nye, Nye & Meyer, Montana Respondent: A. Lance Tom, Lucas Miles City, Montana Submitted & Monaghan, on Briefs: Decided: Filed: April 27, 1995 July 17, 1995 Justice William E. Hunt, Appellant Scott support issued child Powder Sr., J. Sanburn by the County. issue District Court the modification in Scott three final of Scott's child of 15, child A hearing 1994. placed Scott month. support his child current of rough and future estimates Court, from not the of oldest to filed on changed produce his modification of his Scott's expenses. financial the circumstances dates of 2 8, testimony had changed from child as his was vague, and both support calculation at the $149 per hearing to He did testimony employment month 1994. at was necessary. to the circumstances. amount documentation was to modify support obligation finances $500 per and child parties' emancipation, financial heard Scott Pursuant a motion affidavits support of children child's was reduced Scott's the school. Court that of for one Scott amount support high the the 1992. District child assertion any documentation District 14, child 1994, financial his support modifying on July on September Scott. did Court. obligation? was held the from worksheet based received calculations May 1994, motion hearing, and in obligation obligation the the an order determined divorced upon In July on this parties were dissolution, it support graduation support support At child In following decree June appellant's children. emancipated from of Judicial when to pay $650 per month minor opinion is: err and Pam Sanburn was ordered appeals Sixteenth on appeal Did the We affirm. River The sole that delivered the not to extent provide regarding his and consisted the amount of money his earned. future He was not employment construction and sells be losing intended calves on the financial He testified calf for between the amount testified that tax returns do not due to the for tax 1994, that he but testimony the earnings, business expenses Because of contradictory following testimony, submit calculated the accurate more $155 the was information in in Scott's child month. per support Pam's the support Scott's child support child support and found his testimony, The only amount first to documentation 1992 income that Scott's tax at $405 per second the District and it The child Scott's second by $6, to $507 per based District its Court month. 3 support set of of the put The month. The District calculations, them had was Scott's award to a total worksheets and rejected Court Scott's him was $500 per month. be incredible, returns, documentation. and at of as ordered calculation amount amount expenses nature Court Scott the personal District support obligation Court of reflect increased obligation existing accurately calculations. obligation child and expenses. and confusing hearing child earnings he purposes. his his that discrepancies inclusion of his of were testimony self-employed. His contradicted There he worked He testified operation and as to that he is operation. confusing, affidavit. that a partner. the and when testifying and also with continue contradictory his jobs, money to specific and earnings. and ranching He raises would any more child child in toto. 1993 and support support on Did the District modification in Our the of of (1994), Hill Marriage court in 52, determined the support its of modifications discretion. 874 P.2d (1993), amount obligation? child 57, and D.G.D. it support abused 265 Mont. D.F.D. when child review district of err appellant's standard whether 368, Court In 705, 707 261 Mont. is re Marriage (citing 186, In 203, re 862 P.2d 378). Scott that is argues not following that the supported figures District by the in its Court record. child figures July 1994 came support seeking the substantial and obligation of St. 144, 119, In Scott's a child income continuing this 145 121-22, obligation for tax returns his make the Section (Mont. In 882 P.2d changed the Scott: and from his that the Scott re His 890 Marriage 503, circumstances original child (b) (i), P.2d of so support MCA. 1291, Clyatt In re 1293, (1994), 52 267 505). failed to the requires 40-4-208(2) 1995), to extent establish that his He provided unconscionable. testimony. obligation establish as to (citing case, was support modification Paunovich circumstances support calculations used $22,1% unconscionable. Marriage Mont. Court affidavit. of Rep. to him $12,373 6,214 3,500 from Modification party income The District Wages Self-Employment Depreciation Interest TOTAL: These attributed testimony 4 that his financial original child no documentation was contradictory, support vague, to and confusing, and did financial affidavit. requested that paying $500 obligation per Court the its hearing, support $155 per in the to District from his Court Scott. Scott He was currently calculation indicated an month. to supports Scott. We hold when in month. second record attributed the calculations his of discretion he provided to pay $200 per and Court. attributable it the amount of We see no abuse that the District determined the income the of discretion Court amount did of not income Scott. Scott the the month, District abuse information he was able The evidence by the child amount District support After different testified not contends that District Court the does child not support conform to obligation the Montana ordered by Child Support new child support Guidelines. The District after calculations order that it in income the inappropriate In Scott's stated this in computations that Scott's put state District child in the Section support a "disingenuous" its support figures from affidavit. reasons the why (b), and his child they are MCA. that calculations position. in child follow stated testimony 5 1994 40-4-204(3) Court contradictory him of specifically not July stated two combination does case. and a and his his must the case, testimony that it used Court and from court guidelines submit testimony It returns to The District hearing. toto. tax Scott Scott's When a district support ordered rejected calculations Scott's Court it in rejected toto. child It It support is clear that the District calculations on evidence offered evidence District Court Pursuant 1988 Internal precedent with to the Montana of it Law Week, rejected. to the Child I, Paragraph Rules, this its It Supreme State Support 3 (c), decision by its Court Reporter We concur: 6 filing child rejected Scott's that the Guidelines. Montana shall Supreme not Publishing of Court be cited as a public and by a report and West support We hold incredibility. be published the base its Section and shall not of conformed Operating Clerk that because to could court as document its result Company.
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.
