Marriage of Chapman Panagakis , 2009 MT 119N ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                            April 8 2009
    DA 08-0409
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2009 MT 119N
    IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
    TERESA CHAPMAN,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    and
    MICHAEL PANAGAKIS,
    Respondent and Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM:             District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DR-07-0298A
    Honorable Holly Brown, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Christopher J. Gillette, Attorney at Law, Bozeman, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Michael Panagakis, self-represented, McAllister, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: March 25, 2009
    Decided: April 7, 2009
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Brian Morris 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     Appellant Teresa Chapman (Chapman) appeals from the District Court’s order
    denying her motion to modify the parenting plan and denying her request for a hearing. We
    reverse and remand.
    ¶3     Chapman and Respondent Michael Panagakis (Panagakis) had two children during
    their marriage, S.P., born in 1995, and A.P., born in 1997. Chapman and Panagakis divorced
    in 1999 pursuant to a decree issued by a court in Colorado. The court’s decree included a
    parenting plan that provided that the parties would share parenting of the children on a
    roughly equal basis. The court also ordered Panagakis to pay child support.
    ¶4     Panagakis left Colorado after about a year and a half and relocated in California.
    Chapman alleges that Panagakis stopped paying child support at that time. Panagakis
    returned to Colorado in 2003. He remained in Colorado for approximately one year during
    which time he maintained regular visitation with the children. Chapman claims, however,
    that Panagakis did not resume paying child support. Panagakis once again returned to
    California.
    2
    ¶5     Chapman remarried and decided to relocate eventually to Pony, Montana, in 2005
    with her new husband and her two children. Panagakis relocated to McAllister, Montana,
    within two months. Panagakis again exercised his custody rights set forth in the parties’
    decree of dissolution. Chapman alleges that Panagakis did not renew any child support
    payments.
    ¶6     Chapman filed a petition for registration of foreign judgment on July 10, 2007, with
    the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. Chapman also filed a motion to
    modify the parenting plan issued by the Colorado Court and requested a hearing. The
    District Court registered the Colorado decree on July 3, 2008.
    ¶7     The District Court issued its order on July 15, 2008, denying Chapman’s motion to
    modify the Colorado parenting plan without conducting a hearing. The court determined that
    Chapman had “failed to set forth facts that a change has occurred in the children’s
    circumstances sufficient to warrant an amendment” of the parenting plan.
    ¶8     Chapman argues on appeal that substantial changes in circumstances have taken place
    regarding the children. She contends that the parties have moved numerous times in the
    nearly nine years since the Colorado court entered the parenting plan. She alleges that
    Panagakis had only nominal contact with their two children during at least two separate year-
    long periods of time when he lived in different states from them. Chapman further points out
    that the children were ages one and three when the court in Colorado entered the parenting
    plan. They now are ages 11 and 13 and Chapman contends that their needs have changed.
    Chapman argues that the existing 50/50 schedule results in a lack of consistency in rules and
    3
    routines between the two households during the school year that has led to difficulties for the
    children at school and an inability to meet consistently the expectations of their teachers.
    Chapman argues that the children have “expressed a strong desire” to reside with her during
    the school week. Panagakis did not file a brief on appeal.
    ¶9     We review de novo a district court’s assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence.
    Giambra v. Kelsey, 
    2007 MT 158
    , ¶¶ 26-27, 
    338 Mont. 19
    , 
    162 P.3d 134
    . We also conduct
    plenary review of the district court’s conclusions of law. In re Marriage of Syverson, 
    281 Mont. 1
    , 15-16, 
    931 P.2d 691
    , 700 (1997). We have determined to decide this case pursuant
    to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, that
    provide for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before
    us that Chapman has alleged changes in circumstances that could warrant modification of the
    parenting plan pursuant to § 40-4-219, MCA. As a result, we reverse the District Court’s
    order denying Chapman’s motion to amend the parenting plan and remand to the District
    Court to conduct a hearing to determine whether Chapman’s proposed amendment to the
    parenting plan would serve the best interests of the children in this case, S.P. and A.P., as
    required by § 40-4-219, MCA.
    ¶10    Reversed and remanded.
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    4
    We Concur:
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ JIM RICE
    /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-0407

Citation Numbers: 2009 MT 119N

Filed Date: 4/7/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/28/2017