APPEAL FROM: District Court ofthe Eighth Judicial District.
In and for the Count) of Cascade,
The Honorable Kenneth R. Nei:!, Judge presiding,
COCXSEL OF PdCORD
For Appelianr and Cross-Respondent:
t%
Richard L. Parish: Harien. Thon~pson Parish. Weiena. Montana
For Respondent and Cross-Appellant:
I Dale Schwarike; .!arcline: Stepiienson, B1ewe:t & Llieaver, Great Falls,
(
hlontma
-.
c': J:IIXC,S \I, P f i t n i ~ ~ g >
{JXCCS'; L : ~ p e d 21:d Ja11et kern Ijk13~11ig~ ; j , ~ : :~ t ~ s s - : i ~ p c ~ ! ~
s c , l ~ r!
f r o-
, . mdingi or past. <,imcl~.;.;ii~r
,i " '
.
.
,.. .
.
.,i' i..:~y.v arid Order enitred 5s. the Eighrh .J;iiic(;i!
I>ist;.;ct :'mi;!. Casiacic ifcilni!;. modieing James child support and interpreting tile partics'
property settlement agreement (.-I~recrnent). L1,-e a f X m .
K e restate the issues on appeal and cross-appeal as foliows:
"3 1. Did the District Court em in concluding that the Agreement's retiremen1 benefits
provision clearly enritled .i:met to 50% of James' rerirement benetits at the time he retires?
"4 2 . Did the District Coun abuse its discretior1 by amarding increased child suppon
I-etroaccive to January of 1'297 ratllcr tilan to November of 1 W 5 ' ?
*;-
7
) 3. Did the District Court crr in conciuding that thei'e was no sufficient basis to ref(3rm
the A p e m e n t to reqiiire James to provide life insurance'.'
1
'6 4. Did the District Court wi in concluding that neither party ?re\-ailed and in denying
Janet attorney fees and costs'?
I: - 5. is Janet entitled to attorney k e s and costs on appeal'.'
I
II:!L'KC;RO C,3'E
'
8 On January 3. 1W2. tile D i m k t C o u entered a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage
~
(Decree) dissolviilg James mil Janet'; ~narriage. The Decree incorpcxaizd the pi--ies'
. - \ p x m e n i ,,vAiih--:m:i;i. .- ,)fiier rkings--divi&d their ~sseis. n c ! u d i ~ ~
i James' rztirement
Senefirs.
C" 1
: >,I
;) \, .3-l?:>:.
. L , , l L,... - 10
11l'ier
the parties' .Agreement iiird been incorporated into the Decree. James executeci an .ilisiate
t.iie insurance Company Request ibr Change of Beneficiarq f o m . This f;?mcontnincti a
"Remarks'. section which stxed:
Designate Janc: Pfcnnigs as the inevocable heileficiar!; on this policy. This
change is made as part of the dimrce agreement betiicen James and Janct
Pfennigs.
James suhsequentiy borrowed against the policy :md the po!icy lapsed when James failed to
require James ti: puichise a life iiisur-ance poiicy nami;q her as the benef?eiary. 'The 1.Iisrrict
..
Cotirt denied Janet., requcs;, conciuiling "[nje sufiicieni basis exists to require refamation
establish en-or by the District Court in deng-ing her request to r e f o m the A,ureemem Rule
231~a)(4),
M.R.App.P,, requires an appellant to cite to authorities supporring the contentions
raised on appeal arid we regu!arly decline to address unsupported issries or arzilments. See,
. I re r i g' iI 2 o n 5 2 9 32 1 2 1298: i n re
.Ilirriage c$Lee i 1997). 282 Ilont, 410. 121. 038 P.2d 650, 657: .Johnn:ieiz L . .Sa;re, Dept.
qf.\.iltiunl Re.so~/rce.s,1993 I1T 51. " , 258 Ilont. 39.
1 24. 955 P.23 653. 7 71. Janex
l~nvingfailed to con~ply Rule 23(a)!,ii. \/I.R.App.P.. with regard to her a r p m e n t that
~vitli
kmixs.
:he court erred in refuzinq to rel'orrn tile contract. we deciine to address that argi~ment
a:' 1
,->i Janet advances other theories, however. aitd wc address them briefly. kecping in mind
tlint 'he appellant has the to establish error by the disrnct coun. .Tee In re J I m r i ~ z ~ c
(j!'
ilc?oiiide (~1 9 9 4 . 265 hlont. 168.1-6-1.S"5 P 2 d 33 1. 337. First. Janet contends i k i :he
, had
parties ~bl,'i,~i;~,:,, an agi.ee~le3t i h ~ i r1:aint;tini:1g i i k insurance vr James *;vculc! rioi
i t
Thus, the .4greernenr negates the existcncc of a preexisting oral agreement about life
ii:surance as a matter of law.
3 4 Janet also urges thar James is esropped from asserting there was no agrecmenr
regarding life insurance because he signed the beneficiary designation form. 'h-hile b~er
one-
paragraph estoppel argument is not well-developed, she essentially contends that by signing
the insurance thnn James promised to designate her the irrevocable beneficiary L& to keep
the policy in place. The form does retlect the inevocable beneficiarq. designation: the record
does nor reflect. however; th:ii James n:oditied rhe beneficiary designation at any time prior
to the lapse of the insurance policy. Cforeover. the form does not reflect an>-promise to keep
tile policy in effecr for any period of time. Thus. on this record: James kept the soie promise
reflected by the ins~iranee
benefjciary fixm 2nd this coiitenrion need not bc adcircssed hither.
'.,> -
,-7
W'e hold that the Disrict Coun did not err in concludins that tlxrc was no sufficient
h s ; s to reform t!~el p x r n c n t :o require J ~ m e b proxide
to Ilk insurance
'1
3. 4. Did the District t ourt e r r irr concluding that neither p a r e pretailed and in
densing Janet attorney fees and costs?
1-iowever. when the language of a11agreement is clear with r e p d to fccs and costs. a disaict
court is bound by its t e m x ii? re .lJurriclge cifChrcs i 1994j, 263 Mont. 377. 385, 868 P 2 d
6 15, 620. K ~ review a district courts conclusion to detemirx whether its interpretation of
e
lm is correct. Br~:J.slzim,2-0 llont. at 229. 391 P.Zd at 510.
9 !- Part X\.-I1 of the . + x m e n t . entitled ".-\'ITORXEY FEES A \ D COSTS." provides
. 111the event any action or proceeding must be commenced in order to
enforce. modit; or interpret any provision of this .AGREEClEN'T. we agree
that the Court shoii!d award reusonable attorney fees and costs to the
prevsiling party.
Given this clear attorney fees provision, it is necessaq- to determine whether the present
action is encompassed tvithin f i e provision and. it'so. wllet!?er Janet was the prevai!ing party.
1 The issues b e h r e rhe District ('our: nerc .Panet's petition for reformation ct' the