October 16 2008
DA 07-0765
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2008 MT 347N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
SHARON K. DAILEY,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
VON A. DAILEY,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DR 2006-115
Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Sharon K. Dailey (Self-Represented Litigant), Florence, Montana
For Appellee:
Von A. Dailey (Self-Represented Litigant), Florence, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 24, 2008
Decided: October 16, 2008
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, 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. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and 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 Sharon Dailey appeals the Twenty-First Judicial District Court’s judgment of
dissolution. We affirm.
¶3 A restatement of the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court’s
findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are correct.
¶4 Sharon and Von Dailey were married in Montana in April 1987. The couple had
two children, one of whom was emancipated prior to June 2006 when Sharon petitioned
for marital dissolution. In January 2007, the parties entered into a Marital and Property
Settlement Agreement and Parenting Plan. Both parties and their respective attorneys
signed this Agreement. Subsequently, Sharon fired her attorney and represented herself
during the remainder of the District Court proceedings. In September 2007, Sharon filed
a petition to amend the property settlement alleging unconscionability on the part of her
former attorney and Von. The District Court denied the petition. Subsequently, Von’s
attorney withdrew and Von acted pro se before the District Court. The District Court
conducted a status hearing on December 5, 2007, at which both parties appeared and
testified. Sharon again requested amendment of the marital settlement agreement. The
2
District Court ruled from the bench at the close of the hearing that the marriage was
irretrievably broken and ordered it dissolved. The court also approved the Settlement
Agreement and incorporated it into the Final Decree. On December 6, 2007, the District
Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Dissolution.
Sharon appeals. Both parties represented themselves before this Court on appeal.
¶5 In a dissolution proceeding, we review a district court’s findings of fact to
determine whether the district court clearly erred. In re Marriage of Denowh ex rel.
Deck, 2003 MT 244, ¶ 10, 317 Mont. 314, ¶ 10, 78 P.3d 63, ¶ 10. We review a court’s
legal conclusions for correctness. In re Marriage of Thorner, 2008 MT 270, ¶ 21, 345
Mont. 194, ¶ 21, 190 P.3d 1063, ¶ 21.
¶6 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the record that the District Court’s findings of
fact are not clearly erroneous nor are its conclusions based on those findings incorrect.
Furthermore, the court did not abuse its discretion in approving the property settlement
agreement as drafted and executed by the parties. Von’s request for damages is denied.
¶7 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We concur:
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3