No. 85-162
I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA
1985
I N RE THE SUPPORT O F ROCKPIAN.
APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of C a s c a d e ,
T h e H o n o r a b l e J o e l G. R o t h , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For A p p e l l a n t :
H a r t e l i u s & Ferguson; C h a n n i n g J. H a r t e l i u s ,
G r e a t Falls, M o n t a n a
For R e s p o n d e n t :
C h u r c h , H a r r i s , Johnson & W i l l i a m s ; D o n a l d A.
L a B a r , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
- -
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Nay 30, 1985
D e c i d e d : S e p - k e m b e r 5 , 1 9 85
Filed:
SEP S -- 1985
'cc
Clerk
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Bryce L. Rockman (father) and Connie J. Rockman (mother)
each appeals an order of the Cascade County District Court
which reduced father's monthly obligation of child support.
We affirm.
The issues are:
1. Did the District Court err in reducing the father's
child support obligation?
2. Did the District Court err in failing to award
attorney's fees and costs to appellant?
3. Did the District Court err in setting the monthly
support obligation at $175 per child for a total of $525?
4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in not
making the modification effective April 17, 1984, the date
the father filed his motion to reduce his child support
payments?
5. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in
failing to give credit of $3,840 against delinquent child
support payments of $11,527?
6. Did the District Court err in allowing the father
visitation every other Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. until the
children's bedtime?
The parents were married in 1970. Their marriage was
dissolved in 1982. Mother received custody of the couples'
three children, and father was ordered to make support pay-
ments of $330 p e r month for each child.
Father moved to modify his child support obligation
based upon a change of circumstances. On November 19, 1984,
the District Court ordered the father's child support obliga-
tion reduced to $175 per month for each child. In addition,
the court modified the visitation rights of the father and
ordered each party to bear his/her own attorney's fees and
costs.
Did the District Court err in reducing the father's
child support obligation?
,
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p u r s u a n t t o S 40-4-208 ( 2 ) ( b ) ( i ) MCA,
may modify a child support obligation "upon a showing o f
changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to
make the [original or previous] terms unconscionable. "
M o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h e e v i d e n c ~p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g d i d n o t
show a c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o s u b s t a n t i a l a n d c o n t i n u i n g
a s t o render t h e o r i g i n a l decree unconscionable.
This Court w i l l n o t reverse t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o n the
issue of modification of child support unless t h e findings of
f a c t a r e c l e a r l y erroneous. R u l e 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., states
i n pertinent part:
Findings o f f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e
u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and d u e r e g a r d
s h a l l be given t o t h e opportunity of t h e
t r i a l c o u r t t o judge o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y
of the witnesses.
Findings o f f a c t a r e not c l e a r l y erroneous i f supported
by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e :
This Court's function . . . is not t o
s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment i n p l a c e o f t h e
t r i e r o f f a c t s b u t r a t h e r it i s " c o n f i n e d
t o determining whether t h e r e i s substan-
t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support" t h e
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 law.
Although c o n f l i c t s may e x i s t i n the
e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , i t i s t h e d u t y and
f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge t o r e s o l v e
such c o n f l i c t s . H i s findings w i l l not be
d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l w h e r e t h e y a r e b a s e d
on substantia1 though conflicting
evidence.
Olson v. Westfork Properties, Inc. (1976), 1 7 1 Mont. 154,
1 5 7 , 557 P . 2 d 8 2 1 , 823 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s s e c o n d c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w h e l d :
The f a v o r a b l e c h a n g e i n e c o n o m i c c i r c u m -
stances f o r ... [mother] and t h e unfa-
v o r a b l e change i n economic c i r c u m s t a n c e s
of ... [father], both occurring a f t e r
t h e decree of dissolution herein a r e so
s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g a s o f t h e
p r e s e n t t i m e a s t o make t h e t e r m s o f t h e
c h i l d s u p p o r t d e c r e e o f August 1 9 , 1982
unconscionable pursuant to section
40-4-208 ( 2 ) ( b ) ( i )MCA.
The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a s i n h e r i t e d a s u b s t a n -
t i a l sum o f money, r e c e i v e s p e r i o d i c income from t h e f a m i l y
corporation, and now owns a home, debt free. The f a t h e r ' s
income has changed from a maximum o f $ 3 , 8 0 0 a month to a
monthly average o f $2,315 f o r J u n e t h r o u g h September 1984.
We conclude the record contains substantial credible
evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court's f i n d i n g s o f a sub-
s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e n d e r i n g t h e
o r i g i n a l decree unconscionable. The f i n d i n g s a r e n o t c l e a r l y
erroneous. We affirm t h e District Court's modification of
t h e c h i l d support obligation.
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o award a t t o r -
n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s t o a p p e l l a n t ?
Section 40-4-110, MCA, governs t h e awarding o f attor-
ney's fees.
The c o u r t from t i m e t o t i m e , a f t e r con-
sidering t h e financial rpsources of both
p a r t i e s , may o r d e r a p a r t y t o p a y a
r e a s o n a b l e amount o r t h e c o s t t o t h e
o t h e r p a r t y of maintaining o r defending
a n y p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r c h a p t e r s 1 and 4 o f
this t i t l e and for attorney's fees,
i n c l u d i n g sums f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s r e n -
d e r e d and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h e
commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g o r a f t e r
e n t r y o f judgment. The c o u r t may o r d e r
t h a t t h e amount b e p a i d d i r e c t l y t o t h e
a t t o r n e y , who may e n f o r c e t h e o r d e r i n
h i s name.
This Court has i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e awarding o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s
under t h i s s t a t u t e i s n o t mandatory. S e e I n re t h e M a r r i a g e
of Carlson (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 693 P.2d 496, 4 1 St.Rep. 2419. The
c o u r t was w e l l a p p r a i s e d o f t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s o f b o t h
parents. We find no a b u s e of discretion in directing the
p a r t i e s t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s .
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n s e t t i n g t h e m o n t h l y s u p -
p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t $175 p e r c h i l d f o r a t o t a l o f $525?
Father contends t h a t t h e c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n should
have been reduced t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $125 p e r month f o r each
child. F a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e h o u s e and c a r a r e d e b t
free t o t h e mother, h i s support obligation should be based
o n l y on t h e o u t - o f - p o c k e t expenses o f t h e mother. This logic
is erroneous. The c o u r t need n o t l i m i t i t s c a l c u l a t i o n o f a
child support obligation to a percentage of out-of-pocket
expenses.
As stated, t h e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w i s w h e t h e r t h e r e j.s
substantial c r e d i b l e evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e
D i s t r i c t Court's findings. The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l .
e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g on t h e amount needed by t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e
amount husband c a n p a y .
W e a f f i r m t h e award.
IV.
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in not
making t h e modification effective April 17, 1984, the date
the father filed his motion to reduce his child support
payments?
S e c t i o n 40-4-208 ( I ) , MCA, governs t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of
modification.
(1 Except a s otherwise provided i n
40-4-201 ( 6 ) , a d e c r e e may b e m o d i f i e d by
the court a s t o ... support only a s t o
i n s t a l l m e n t s accruing subsequent t o t h e
motion f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n .
The s t a t u t e l e a v e s t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n
of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Father contends t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e
should be retroactive t o t h e d a t e t h e o r i g i n a l m o t i o n was
filed. The record does not contain substantial evidence
which would require a change in the effective date. We
a f f i r m t h e District Court.
v.
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g
to give credit of $3,840 against delinquent child support
payments o f $11,527?
Father requests an offset in the amount of $3,840.
Pursuant to the original dissolution decree, father was
ordered to sell a home in Alabama and turn the net sale
proceeds over to t h e mother. In order t o consummate the
sale, it was n e c e s s a r y for either the f a t h e r o r mother t o
s u p p l e m e n t t h e p u r c h a s e r s ' house payments w i t h $160 p e r month
f o r two y e a r s , a total of $3,840. The f a t h e r v o l u n t a r i l y
s u p p l e m e n t e d t h e h o u s e payments. Father contends h i s gener-
o s i t y should o f f s e t a p a r t of t h e delinquent child support
obligation.
I n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r an o f f s e t s h o u l d b e p e r m i t t e d , t h i s
C o u r t l o o k s f i r s t t o w h e t h e r b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h e payment
would o f f s e t t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . I n r e t h e Mar-
r i a g e o f Good (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 691 P.2d 1 3 3 7 , 1339, 4 1 S t . R e p .
2109, 2111. The r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o n t a i n e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e
f a t h e r and m o t h e r a g r e e d t o offset the father's generosity
against t h e child support obligation. W e affirm the D i s t r i c t
C o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f an o f f s e t .
VI .
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a l l o w i n g t h e f a t h e r v i s i -
tation every o t h e r Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. until the chil-
dren ' s bedtime?
F i n d i n g o f f a c t number 4 i n d i c a t e s t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t -
ed t o an e x t e n s i v e v i s i t a t i o n agreement. Among o t h e r t h i n g s ,
the agreement covered summer v a c a t i o n , school holidays in-
cluding Thanksgiving and Christmas, children's birthdays,
Father's Day, Mother's Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day and
Halloween. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t awarded t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a -
t i o n e v e r y o t h e r Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. until the children's
bedtime. W e conclude t h e record c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i -
b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of v i s i t a -
tion rights.
W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
W concur:
e /