April 29 2009
DA 08-0417
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 147N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
HENRY D. WEBSTER,
Petitioner and Appellant,
and
PATRICIA R. WEBSTER,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 04-0556
Honorable Russell C. Fagg, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jeanne M. Walker; Hagen & Walker, PLLC; Billings, Montana
For Appellee:
Paula Saye-Dooper; Saye Law, PLLC; Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 8, 2009
Decided: April 29, 2009
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice W. William Leaphart 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 Henry D. Webster and Patricia R. Webster were divorced by a final decree of
dissolution of marriage entered in June of 2004. The final decree ordered Henry to pay
Patricia $750 per month for maintenance.
¶3 Due to changed circumstances, Henry filed a motion to modify the decree by
reducing maintenance to $250 per month.
¶4 After a hearing the District Court reduced Henry’s maintenance obligation to $375
per month.
¶5 On appeal, Henry argues on the one hand that there is no evidence to support a
conclusion that he has a continuing obligation to support his ex-wife. Nontheless, he
contends that the District Court should have set the maintenance obligation at $250 per
month, as he requested.
¶6 The District Court’s order states: “[f]or the reasons stated on the record in open
court on July 31, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Decree of Dissolution
issued by this Court on the 15th day of June, 2004 shall be modified as to reduce
2
Petitioner’s current maintenance obligation in the amount of $750.00 per month to
$375.00 per month effective July 31, 2008.”
¶7 Henry seeks to have this matter remanded for the reason that “[t]he District
Court’s findings concerning modification of the maintenance are not supported by
substantial, credible evidence.” Further, Henry argues that the District Court acted
arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment and exceeded the bounds of
reason in denying his request to further reduce the maintenance obligation.
¶8 In the absence of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, this Court is
unable to adequately review the District Court’s decision to reduce the maintenance
award to $375 per month.
¶9 Accordingly, we remand this matter to the District Court for entry of appropriate
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The District Court shall forward its findings and
conclusions to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for our review.
¶10 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for
memorandum opinions.
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
We concur:
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
3