不審 FAMILY LAW MATTERS

Mom is mentally ill and emotionally abuses children. Dad is good parent. He resides in California. Court orders permanent placement in California with dad. Kids thrive there. Mom is excluded from any contact until she gets mental health treatment. This is final resolution of case as far as DPHHS is concerned. A few years later, the mom unexpectedly shows up in California in violation of the order. Dad files the order as a foreign judgment in California and the time period for mom to object passes. Then mom files a motion to dismiss the proceedings in Montana. The majority felt this should have been construed as a motion to transfer jurisdiction. the district court, however, treated it as a motion to dismiss the final judgment and denied it. Appealed on jurisidictional grounds. Court majority decided UCCJEA overruled a more ambiguous title 41 jurisdictional provision (left over from the old UCCJA) and held that jurisdiction should have be transferred to California. Curious in that mom had not filed anything in California courts that would give rise to the issue. Dissent argued district judge had ruled correctly. Essential holding was UCCJEA governs abuse and neglect proceedings and if neither party nor the children reside in Montana (mom had moved to Minnesota), then although the order remained valid and enforceable by California courts until California modified the order, Montana no longer had jurisdiction.

Bozeman couple lived together for a number of years, bought and remodeled a home. They married, then sought divorce 2 years later. District Judge adopted $250,000 value for house and awarded to wife, later amended judgment to require her to pay $48,000 to husband to equalize division of property and ordered wife to sell the home if she couldn’t pay. She sold the home for $220,000 then filed motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Denied. She also complained that she did not get Maggie the dog, whom she claimed was given to her as gift from husband. She alternatively claimed best interests of the dog required award to her. Supreme Court affirmed the District Court.

If you are a lawyer registered for the Missoula Family Law Seminar of March 28, 2008, I have placed the electronic versions of my proposed Special Interest Parenting Plan Forms on the “Forms” Page listed on the right of your screen. If you have forgotten the password, please email me at corbinhoward@corbinhoward.com. (more…)

Section 4.50(c) of the Access Rules forbids any publicly available court record from containing the full social security number of an individual. Section 40-4-105 M.C.A. requires the social security numbers of the persons subject to a decree of dissolution to be “recorded in the records” — made a part of the court file. However, if a litigant requests, the clerk of court must keep the social security number confidential. See Section 40-4-105(6) M.C.A.