No. 80-209
I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
H F F
1980
I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF
NANCY JANE ROME,
P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent,
vs .
NELSON ALLEN ROME,
Respondent and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f P o w e l l .
Honorable R o b e r t Boyd, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
W i l l i a m R. T a y l o r , D e e r Lodge, Montana
F o r Respondent:
Ted L. Mizner, County A t t o r n e y , D e e r Lodge, Montana
James J . Masar, D e e r Lodge, Montana
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : August 2 3 , 1980
Decided: JAB 1 & @@
Filed : - 12 j/fJ@i
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
R e s p o n d e n t N e l s o n A l l e n Rome a p p e a l s from a j u d g m e n t
e n t e r e d i n P o w e l l C o u n t y a r i s i n g o u t o f a URESA a c t i o n , o r d e r i n g
h i m t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e s , and d e n y i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n
o f c h i l d s u p p o r t payments.
Nancy J a n e Rome and N e l s o n A l l e n Rome were m a r r i e d i n 1 9 6 8
a n d a d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n was e n t e r e d i n P o w e l l C o u n t y i n 1 9 7 8 .
The care and c u s t o d y o f t h e t w o c h i l d r e n b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e was
g i v e n t o Nancy Rome. The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n p r o p e r t y
s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t , which p r o v i d e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , that
N e l s o n Rome was t o p a y $150 p e r month p e r c h i l d i n c h i l d s u p p o r t .
I n December 1 9 7 9 , Nancy Rome p e t i t i o n e d t h e ~ i s t r i c t
C o u r t , G a l l a t i n C o u n t y , f o r e n f o r c e m e n t of t h e s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s
of the dissolution decree. The a c t i o n was t r a n s f e r r e d t o P o w e l l
C o u n t y and was c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h a n a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by N e l s o n
Rome t o m o d i f y s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s t o $ 1 0 0 p e r month p e r c h i l d ,
b e c a u s e of changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e d e n i e d t h e
p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n , f i n d i n g t h a t N e l s o n Rome v o l u n t a r i l y
e n t e r e d i n t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e d u c i n g h i s a b i l i t y t o p a y , and t h a t
t h e c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t t h e
reduction. H e a l s o o r d e r e d N e l s o n R o m e t o p a y a r r e a r a g e s of
$1100.
Nelson a p p e a l s , b r i n g i n g one i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court:
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o r e d u c e c h i l d
s u p p o r t payments where a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e d changes i n h i s f i n a n c i a l
c o n d i t i o n , b r o u g h t a b o u t by a v o l u n t a r y c h a n g e i n employment and
by h i s r e m a r r i a g e ?
S e c t i o n 40-4-208, MCA, s e t s o u t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which a modi-
f i c a t i o n of a s u p p o r t o r d e r may be e n t e r e d :
" M o d i f i c a t i o n and t e r m i n a t i o n o f p r o v i s i o n s f o r
maintenance, s u p p o r t , and p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n .
(1) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s ~ r o v i d e di n 40-4-201( 6 ) ,
a d e c r e e may be m o d i f i e d by a c o u r t as t o main-
t e n a n c e o r s u p p o r t o n l y as t o i n s t a l l m e n t s
a c c r u i n g subsequent to t h e motion f o r
modification.
" ( b ) Whenever t h e d e c r e e p r o p o s e d f o r m o d i f i c a -
t i o n c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g to maintenance
o r s u p p o r t , m o d i f i c a t i o n u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n (1)
may o n l y be made:
" ( i ) upon a s h o w i n g o f c h a n g e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o
s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g as t o make t h e terms
unconscionable . . ."
The d i s t r i c t j u d g e i n h i s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s d e t e r -
mined t h a t
... t h e Respondent h a s changed h i s
employment f r o m t h e h a r d w a r e b u s i n e s s i n which
h e h a s p r e v i o u s l y b e e n employed t o f i e l d
employment i n t h e l o g g i n g i n d u s t r y , w h i c h he
f i n d s less f i n a n c i a l l y r e m u n e r a t i v e , and f o r
t h e s e r e a s o n s s e e k s a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e amount of
m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t f o r h i s m i n o r c h i l d r e n .
" W h e r e f o r e , it is c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c h a n g e s i n
c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e l i e d upon by t h e R e s p o n d e n t
h e r e i n h a v e b e e n u n i l a t e r a l l y made and h e h a s
v o l u n t a r i l y assumed t h e o b l i g a t i o n s o f a s e c o n d
family.
"That t h e changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s are i n s u f f i c i e n t
t o w a r r a n t a c h a n g e i n t h e amount of s u p p o r t
n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n , i s s u e of t h e
m a r r i a g e , and t h e P e t i t i o n is d e n i e d . "
C h i l d s u p p o r t m u s t r e f l e c t a b a l a n c e among t h e n e e d s of
t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d and t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r e n t s t o p a y .
S e c t i o n 40-4-204, MCA. Normally, a s u b s t a n t i a l change i n t h e
f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t or c h i l d h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d as
g r o u n d s f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of a p r e v i o u s l y - e n t e r e d child support
order. G i a n o t t i v. McCracken ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 209, 2 1 5 , 5 6 9
P.2d 9 2 9 , 9 3 2 ; H a r d i n g v. H a r d i n g ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 5 9 I l l . A p p . 3 d 25, 3 7 4
N.E.2d 1304; Annot., 89 ALR2d 7 , 53.
A p p e l l a n t h e r e a l l e g e s s u b s t a n t i a l changes, b u t he admits
t h a t h e v o l u n t a r i l y b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e c o n d i t i o n s which w o r s e n e d
his financial situation. Many j u r i s d i c t i o n s h o l d t h a t i f a
p a r e n t v o l u n t a r i l y changes his/her f i n a n c i a l circumstances, such
c h a n g e s are n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o deem t h e p r e v i o u s c h i l d s u p p o r t
o r d e r unconscionable, and t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d n o t e v e n be c o n s i d e r e d .
M i l l e r v. Miller ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 6 5 I l l . A p p . 3 d 8 4 4 , 382 N.E.2d 823, 826;
L a m b e r t v. Lambert ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 6 6 Wash.2d 5 0 3 , 4 0 3 P.2d 664, 668;
B u r n e t t v. B u r n e t t ( 1 9 7 4 ) , KY , 516 S.W.2d 330, 3 3 2 ;
Annots. 89 ALR.2d 7 , 5 1 9 ; 89 ALR.2d 1 0 6 S3.
T h i s is a n i s s u e o f f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i n Montana. A con-
si d e r a t i o n of d i f f e r i n g a u t h o r i t i e s has convinced t h i s Court t h a t
s u c h a n i n f l e x i b l e a p p r o a c h is t o o h a r s h . Although we hold t h a t
a r e d u c t i o n i n a b i l i t y to pay b r o u g h t a b o u t through a v o l u n t a r y
c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s is n o t , i n i t s e l f , s u f f i c i e n t to m a n d a t e
a m o d i f i c a t i o n of s u p p o r t , n e i t h e r d o w e a p p r o v e t h e v i e w t h a t
self-imposed c h a n g e s c a n n e v e r be c o n s i d e r e d as r e a s o n s f o r
modification. The b e t t e r a p p r o a c h is t o a l l o w t h e j u d g e t o con-
s i d e r t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c h a n g e s and t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e c h a n g e s ,
and t h e n to d e t e r m i n e whether, under a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a
m o d i f i c a t i o n is w a r r a n t e d . S e e N e l s o n v. N e l s o n ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 2 2 5 O r .
2 5 7 , 357 P.2d 536.
The f i n d i n g s o f t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e i n t h i s case i n d i c a t e
t h a t he c o n s i d e r e d t h e v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e of N e l s o n ' s job change
and r e m a r r i a g e , a n d , upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,
h e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t N e l s o n d i d n o t show t h a t t h e s e c h a n g e s
s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l t e r e d h i s a b i l i t y to pay. E v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d
a t t r i a l as t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e incomes and n e e d s of t h e p a r t i e s
a n d t h e j u d g e made f i n d i n g s r e f l e c t i n g t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f a l l
of the p a r t i e s , including the children. See G i a n o t t i , supra, 174
Mont. a t 215, 569 P.2d a t 9 3 2 ; K r o n o v i c h v. K r o n o v i c h ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
Mont . , 588 P.2d 5 1 0 , 513-514, 35 St.Rep. 1946, 1951.
Based on h i s f i n d i n g s , t h e d i s t r i c t judge concluded t h a t
t h e c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s shown by N e l s o n R o m e was n o t s u b s t a n -
t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g e n o u g h t o r e n d e r t h e p r i o r s u p p o r t o r d e r
unconscionable. W e presume t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t
j u d g e a r e c o r r e c t and w e w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n them u n l e s s t h e r e is a
p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t them. Rule 52 ( a ) ,
M.R.Civ.P.; Cameron v. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . , 5 8 7 P.2d
9 3 9 , 945, 3 5 S t . R e p . 1723, 1729. Here, w e f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i -
d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s .
Af f i r m e d .
Chief J u s t i c e
We concw: