July 21 2009
DA 08-0557
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 239N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
KAREN G. SCHANZ,
Petitioner and Appellee,
and
KENNETH L. SCHANZ,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Golden Valley, Cause No. DR-03-04
Honorable Randal I. Spaulding, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Craig R. Buehler, Attorney at Law; Lewistown, Montana
For Appellee:
Lee Rindal, Attorney at Law; Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 5, 2009
Decided: July 21, 2009
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice 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 shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the
State Reporter Publishing Company and West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable
cases issued by this Court.
¶2 In 2004, the District Court dissolved the marriage of Karen and Kenneth Schanz.
Kenneth later moved the court to amend its Final Decree of Dissolution, asking that the
court allow him to add the parties’ daughter to his employer-sponsored medical insurance
and reduce by a corresponding amount his monthly obligation to Karen for insurance
premiums for the daughter under the decree. He also moved the court for relief from the
decree and sought sanctions against Karen, claiming she failed to disclose certain assets
during the dissolution proceeding as required by § 40-4-253, MCA. After a hearing
during which both parties testified, the court denied Kenneth’s motions.
¶3 Upon review of the record, we conclude the District Court did not err by
concluding that Kenneth failed to carry the burden of proof on his claim that Karen failed
to disclose numerous vehicles as required under § 40-4-253, MCA. Further, we hold the
court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Kenneth’s motion to modify the final
decree regarding the Schanz’s daughter’s medical insurance coverage and Kenneth’s
2
payments thereof. See In re Marriage of Crilly, 2009 MT 187, ¶ 11, 351 Mont. 71, 209
P.3d 249.
¶4 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003,
amending Section I.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing 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 findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District
Court correctly interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District
Court.
¶5 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3