Marriage of Shapard Cruse , 2006 MT 205N ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                            No. 05-164
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2006 MT 205N
    IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
    NANCY SHAPARD,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    v.
    JOSEPH CRUSE,
    Respondent and Respondent.
    APPEAL FROM:         The District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 03-972,
    Honorable Susan P. Watters, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Linda L. Harris, Harris Law Firm, P.C., Billings, Montana
    For Respondent:
    Jill Deann LaRance, LaRance & Syth, P.C., Billings, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: June 7, 2006
    Decided: August 29, 2006
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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     Nancy Shapard (“Shapard”) and Joseph Cruse (“Cruse”) were married on
    December 31, 1999. They have one minor child, Sarah. The District Court issued a
    decree of dissolution on September 30, 2004. The court awarded Cruse custody of Sarah
    and ordered Shapard to pay child support. In calculating Shapard’s income, the court
    included the rental value of housing that Shapard receives for free from her parents.
    ¶3     On appeal, Shapard argues that the District Court abused its discretion by
    imputing income to Shapard based on the rental value of her free housing. Shapard,
    however, included her own estimate of the rental value of this property as income on the
    final child support calculation that she filed with the District Court.        During the
    dissolution hearing, Shapard testified about the rental value of this property on direct
    examination and cross-examination and did not object to including it as income. In
    addition, Shapard failed to object when Cruse offered an exhibit that includes the rental
    value of her free housing as a discrete source of income. “Failure to object to an alleged
    error precludes an appellant from raising that issue on appeal.” Buhr ex rel. Lloyd v.
    2
    Flathead Co., 
    268 Mont. 223
    , 254, 
    886 P.2d 381
    , 400 (1994) (quoting Barrett v.
    ASARCO, Inc., 
    245 Mont. 196
    , 205, 
    799 P.2d 1078
    , 1083 (1990)). Having included the
    rental value of her free housing as income in documents filed with the District Court, and
    having never brought this alleged error to the attention of the District Court, Shapard may
    not raise it for the first time on appeal.
    ¶4       It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003,
    amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for
    memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us
    that the appeal is without merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial
    evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District
    Court correctly interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District
    Court.
    ¶5       We affirm.
    /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
    We concur:
    /S/ KARLA M. GRAY
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    /S/ JOHN WARNER
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-164

Citation Numbers: 2006 MT 205N

Filed Date: 8/29/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014