IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 96-186
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
CHRISTENE L. DAVIS,
i OPINION
Petitioner and Respondent, AND
ORDE
v.
i
STANLEY G. DAVIS,
Respondent and Appellant. )
This matter is currently before this Court on an appeal filed
by Stanley G. Davis (Davis). Davis has appealed from an order
issued by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County,
dismissing his petition for judicial review. The Child Support
Enforcement Division of the Montana Department of Public Health and
Human Services ICSED), acting on behalf of Christene L. Davis
(Christene) , has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the
grounds that it is fruitless, weightless, needless and senseless.
The current dispute originates from an April 18, 1984, decree,
judgment and order entered by the District Court ordering Davis to
pay $175 per month in child support for his two minor children.
Davis did not perfect an appeal from the final judgment and order,
nor has it been amended, modified or set aside. Christene
subsequently applied for and received Aid to Families with
Dependent Children for the minor children.
On June 26, 1995, CSED filed a notice of intent to withhold
income pursuant to § 40-5-413, MCA, alleging that Davis was
delinquent on his child support obligation in the amount of $44,
975. Davis requested an administrative hearing and on August 15,
1995, a hearing was conducted. Following the hearing the
Administrative Law Judge issued a decision and order determining
that Davis was delinquent on his child support obligation in the
amount of $44,975.
On August 29, 1995, Davis filed a document with the District
Court which appeared to be an appeal from the Administrative Law
Judges decision and order. Davis did not serve CSED with the
document. On the same day the District Court issued an order
stating that M [tlhe action from which Respondent appeals is
unclear, and the document filed by Respondent is deficient in many
respects." Nevertheless, the court allowed the document to be
filed but cautioned that no further action would be taken until
Davis properly perfected the appeal.
On October 11, 1995, Davis filed a "Petition for Judicial
Review" with the District Court. The document named the State of
Montana and CSED as Respondents and once again CSED was not
properly served with the petition. Davis requested that the
District Court invalidate his divorce decree and support order
because of fraud. The petition also made claims against persons
who were not involved with CSED's administrative action and
requested money damages from the State.
The District Court dismissed the petition with prejudice
stating that justice would not be served by requiring CSED to
respond to a pleading that is "fatally flawed on its face." The
court stated that the relief Davis sought was outside the court's
power to grant and noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not
permit Davis to convert an appeal from an administrative decision
into a lawsuit against the agency which made the decision. Davis
appealed to this Court from the District Court's order dismissing
his petition. CSED then filed its motion to dismiss the appeal
which is presently before this Court. Davis has requested that
this Court consider CSED's brief in support of its motion to
dismiss as its brief in response to his appeal. We therefore
choose to review the appeal on its merits rather than under a
motion to dismiss standard.
The Montana Administrative Procedure Act allows for judicial
review of agency decisions. Section 2-4-702, MCA, provides that a
petition for judicial review must be timely filed and must include
a concise statement of the facts and a statement of the manner in
2
which the petitioner is aggrieved. The petitioner must state the
grounds as specified in § Z-4-704(2), MCA, upon which he or she
contends relief is entitled. Section 2-4-702(l) (b), MCA, states
that the petition may not raise any other question not raised
before the agency unless good cause is shown and § 2-4-702(2)(a),
MCA, requires the petition to be promptly served upon the agency
and all parties of record. Section Z-4-704, MCA, states that
judicial review shall be confined to the record and that the court
may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on
evidentiary matters.
In dismissing Davis' petition, the District Court determined
that it had not been properly perfected and that Davis' request for
relief went beyond the scope of the court's judicial review power.
When a district court dismisses a cause of action we must determine
whether the court abused its discretion. Nystrom v. Melcher
(19931, 262 Mont. 151, 157, 864 P.2d 754, 758. The test of abuse
of discretion is whether the court acted arbitrarily without
employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of
reason resulting in substantial injustice. Gaustad v. City of
Columbus (1995), 272 Mont. 486, 488, 901 P.2d 565, 567.
In the present case, Davis had the opportunity to appeal his
original divorce decree and/or modify the support provisions in the
order. He chose to pursue neither of those remedies and instead
became delinquent on his child support obligation. CSED initiated
administrative action to collect the past-due debt and, following
an evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge entered its
decision and order. Davis' petition for judicial review of that
order does not comply with the requirements of Montana's
Administrative Procedure Act set forth above and seeks relief
beyond that which the District Court or this Court has the power to
grant.
We therefore determine that the District Court did not act
arbitrarily without employing conscientious judgment, nor did it
exceed the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice when
it dismissed Davis1 petition. We conclude that the District Court
3
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Davis' petition.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that CSED's motion to dismiss Davis' appeal is
DENIED. The District Court's October 11, 1995 "Order of Dismissal"
is hereby affirmed.
The Clerk is directed to mail a true copy of this Opinion and
Order to Stanley G. Davis, to counsel of record for CSED and to the
Honorable Michael C. Prezeau, District Judge.
DATED this of July, 1996.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-_ St I herebycertify that the following certified order was sentby United Statesmail, prepaid,to the
following named:
StanleyG. Davis
3264Iron CreekRd.
Troy, MT 59935
JohnM. McRae, Dept. of PublicHealth& HumanServices
Child SupportEnforcement Div.
1610So. 3rd West, Ste. 201
Missoula,MT 59801
ED SMITH
CLERK OF THE SUPREMECOURT
STATEOF MONTANA