Marriage of Miller ( 2021 )

07/27/2021 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 21-0262 DA 21-0262 FLED IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: JUL 27 2021 Bowen Greenwood DEVON E. MILLER, Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana • • Petitioner and Appellee, ORDER and BRIAN T. MILLER, Respondent and Appellant. Appellant Brian T. Miller (Brian), via counsel, moves pursuant to M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a) for relief from an Order of the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer COunty, denying his motion to stay the April 27, 2021 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (Decree) entered by the District Court in Cause No. DR-2019-95, until this Court resolves the present appeal. Brian alleges that if the judgment is not stayed until this appeal is resolved, the children who are subject to the incorporated parenting plan will be irreparably harmed because their lives will be uprooted. Appellee Devon E. Miller (Devon) objects to Brian's motion for stay, arguing this Court should allow the District Court's denial of stay to stand. At issue is the Parenting Plan that the District Court approved and adopted in the Decree. During their marriage, Brian and Devon reiided in Miles City and raised the children there. After the couple separated, Devon expressed an iritention to move to Palmyra, Virginia. The Parenting Plan in this case calls for the children to spend their school years residing with Devon in Palmyra and to spend their summer vacations in Miles City with Brian. After the 2020-21 school year ended, Devon moved to Palmyra while the children remained with Brian in Miles City for summer vacation. Brian now seeks a stay so that the children will remain with him and attend school in Miles City until his appeal is decided. He argues that, should he prevail on appeal, the children's lives will be less disrupted if they begin the school year in Miles City than if they move to a new place and attend a new school. Devon responds that the District Court correctly considered the best interests of the children as well as Brian's arguments. She points out that if the children begin the school year in Miles City and Brian does not prevail on appeal, the children's lives will be equally i f not more disrupted by transferring to a new school in the middle of the school year. M.R. App. P. 22(2)(a) provides that a motion for relief under this Rule must, arnong other factors, demonstrate good cause for the relief requested. M.R. App. P. 22(3) allows this Court, in the interests ofjustice, to grant, modify, or deny the relief requested. We have considered Brian's arguments and reviewed the District Court's Order Denying Stay Pending Appeal, which demonstrates that the court carefully weighed the evidence and arguments before denying Brian's motion. We are not convinced that the interests of justice require overturning the decision of the District Court, nor has Brian demonstrated good cause to do so. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a) motion of Appellant Brian T. Miller for relieffrom the District Court's order is DENIED. The Clerk is directzR provide copies of this order to all counsel ofrecord. DATED this 7_74-Zy of July, 2021. " Chief Justice eA71 M JUL 2 3