What are adequate findings supporting a trial court decision modifying maintenance? In In Re Marriage of Webster 2009 MT 147N the Montana Supreme Court made it clear that these oral findings are not enough:
“. . . I understand Mr. Webster would like to quit working and certainly understand that, and you’ve worked hard and you’ve worked long, but it sounds like Mrs. Webster is in an increasingly difficult circumstance, and so really what this boils down to in a sense is whether you help pay for her care or whether the taxpayers help pay for her care, and to me, that’s kind of a difficult position to put a Court into. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to try and help out and pay $250 a month. I think what I am going to do is, I’ll cut your obligation in half, to $375 a month. I definitely understand that you have a change in circumstances, and you need some give here, but I also believe that you have an obligation to support your exwife.” See Appellant’s Brief, page 10.
This case concerned an ex-husband wishing to retire and to reduce his maintenance obligation to his fully disabled ex-wife. The Montana Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to the trial court to simply forward its findings and conclusions back to the Supreme Court for review: “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.” The case was not reversed.
