No. 13288
I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA
H OR F H F
1976
M R H J. BURRIS,
ATA
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
BILLY C. BURRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Smith and Rice, Havre, Montana
Ronald W. Smith argued, Havre, Montana
For Respondent:
Frank Altman argued, Havre, Montana
For Amicus Curiae:
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Donald Smith appeared, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Submitted: October 27, 1976
Filed ::!F?. b ' I976
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s an appeal from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
H i l l County, s i t t i n g without a j u r y , Hon. LeRoy McKinnon, presiding.
The judgment modified a divorce decree entered March 1, 1974,
i n c r e a s i n g a c h i l d support f o r t h e youngest and only remaining
minor c h i l d from $125 per month t o $200, and specifying t h e l e n g t h
of t h e v i s i t a t i o n period t h e f a t h e r i s e n t i t l e d t o have with t h e
c h i l d annually.
P l a i n t i f f Martha B u r r i s was granted a divorce from defendant
B i l l y B u r r i s on March 1, 1974. The divorce granted p l a i n t i f f mother
$250 per month alimony, plus $125 per month c h i l d support f o r each
of t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n of t h e marriage. Child support was t o
continue u n t i l each c h i l d reached h i s majority. Defendant was t o
have reasonable v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s with t h e c h i l d r e n , and p l a i n t i f f
was granted custody.
A t t h e end of t h e school year i n 1974, p l a i n t i f f mother
and t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n moved t o Oklahoma. She c u r r e n t l y
i s employed t h e r e a s a t e a c h e r ' s a i d e and i s paid $2.10 p e r hour
during t h e school year. Two of t h e c h i l d r e n have now reached
majority and t h e mother now receives support payments only f o r t h e
youngest .
I n May 1975, defendant f a t h e r brought an a c t i o n t o modify
t h e o r i g i n a l decree requesting t h e alimony o b l i g a t i o n be s t r i c k e n
and t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s be more c l e a r l y defined. The mother
f i l e d a c r o s s - p e t i t i o n i n response requesting modification of t h e
decree increasing t h e amount of support f o r each of two c h i l d r e n who
were minors a t t h a t time. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment increased
t h e c h i l d support f o r t h e remaining minor c h i l d and granted t h e
t h e f a t h e r s i x weeks v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s each summer. The i s s u e
f o r review on t h i s appeal i s whether t h e evidence i s s u f f i c i e n t
t o support t h e c o u r t ' s judgment.
This Court's f u n c t i o n i n review of a determination of t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment i n place of
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s , b u t r a t h e r i t i s confined t o determining
i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s determination. Hornung v. E s t a t e of Lagerquist, 155
Mont. 412, 420, 473 P.2d 541. The f a c t t h a t t h e r e may have been
c o n f l i c t s i n t h e testimony does not mean t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l
evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . Davis v. Davis, 159 Mont. 355,
361, 497 P.2d 315. Transamerica I n s , Co. v. G l a c i e r Gen. Assur.
Co., 163 Mont, 454, 461, 517 P.2d 888.
I n t h e i n s t a n t m a t t e r evidence was presented by each p a r t y
and, of n e c e s s i t y , was i n p a r t c o n f l i c t i n g . However, t h e r e was
s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence of a' change of circumstances s i n c e
t h e o r i g i n a l decree --- increased expenses on t h e p a r t of t h e
p l a i n t i f f mother and increased income of t h e defendant f a t h e r .
There was s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l
c o u r t ' s judgment, and t h e r e f o r e we f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n
and t h e judgment i s affirmed.
#is t i c e
; ,budge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e
t'wesley C a s t l e s . - 3 -
i