No. DA 06-0010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 326N
ELAINE SUSAN SAMUEL,
Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
JAMES GIBSON BOSLOUGH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 2004-1517,
Honorable Susan P. Watters, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
George T. Radovich, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Jill Deann LaRance, LaRance & Syth, P.C., Billings, Montana
Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Submitted on Briefs: October 18, 2006
Decided: December 12, 2006
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be
included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific
Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 James Gibson Boslough (Boslough) appeals from the District Court’s Order
Denying Amended Petition for Modification entered on November 8, 2005. In its
decision, the court denied Boslough’s request for modification of his child support
obligation. The court determined that Boslough had failed to provide any evidence that
he could not be fully employed, therefore, by semi-retiring, he became voluntarily
underemployed with the result that full-time income was appropriately imputed to him
under Admin. R. M. 37.62.106; and Rule 4(6)-(7), Montana Child Support Guidelines.
The court also found that Boslough had made no showing of changed circumstances so
substantial and continuing as to make the previous determination of child support
unconscionable under § 40-4-208(2)(b)(i), MCA. With respect to Boslough’s request to
amend the parenting plan, the court concluded that Boslough had failed to provide any
evidence that a change had occurred in the circumstances of the children making an
amendment to the existing parenting plan necessary to serve the best interests of the
children under § 40-4-219(1), MCA.
¶3 Having reviewed the record in this matter, we have determined to decide this case
pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended
2
in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the
briefs and the record before us that the appeal is without merit because the court’s
findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and because the legal issues are
clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District Court correctly interpreted.
¶4 Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s Order Denying Amended Petition for
Modification entered November 8, 2005.
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
3