General
We review the district court's findings of fact in a dissolution proceeding to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Crilly, 2005 MT 311, ¶ 10, 329 Mont. 479, 124 P.3d 1151. Absent clearly erroneous findings, we will affirm a district court's division of property and award maintenance unless we identify an abuse of discretion. Crilly, ¶ 10.
Valuation of Marital Estate
A district court may value marital property based on expert testimony, lay testimony, documentary evidence, or any combination thereof, as long as the valuation is reasonable in light of the evidence submitted. Thus, we will only disturb a court's valuation and allocation if it abuses its discretion or its findings are clearly erroneous. Novak v. Novak, 2014 MT 62, ¶ 16, 374 Mont. 182, 320 P.3d 459.
The factors listed in § 40-4-202, MCA, must be considered and referred to in the district court's findings and conclusions and there must be competent evidence presented on the values of the property. In re Funk, 2012 MT 14, ¶ 7, 363 Mont. 352, 270 P.3d 39
Distribution of Marital Property
The district court's apportionment of the marital estate will stand unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion as manifested by a substantially inequitable division of the marital assets resulting in substantial injustice. Richards v. Trusler, 2015 MT 314, ¶ 11, 381 Mont. 357, 360 P.3d 1126.
Section 40-4-202, MCA, vests the district court with broad discretion to apportion the marital estate in a manner equitable to each party under the circumstances. We review a district court's division of marital property to determine whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and the conclusions of law are correct. Absent clearly erroneous findings, we will affirm a district court's division of property and award of maintenance unless we identify an abuse of discretion. As we have stated previously, each case must be examined individually, with an eye to its unique circumstances. In re Funk, 2012 MT 14, ¶ 6, 363 Mont. 352, 270 P.3d 39
Maintenance Awards
The standard of review for maintenance awards is whether the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. The amount and period of maintenance must be determined in accordance with § 40-4-203(2), MCA. In re Marriage of Haines, 2002 MT 182, ¶ 15, 311 Mont. 70, 53 P.3d 378.
Parenting Plans
We review a district court's findings of fact supporting a parenting plan to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine if they are correct. In re the Parenting of C.J., 2016 MT 93, ¶ 12, 383 Mont. 197, 369 P.3d 1028.
A district court has broad discretion when considering the parenting of a child, and we must presume that the court carefully considered the evidence and made the correct decision. C.J., ¶ 13. Accordingly, absent clearly erroneous findings, we will not disturb a district court's decision regarding parenting plans unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. C.J., ¶ 13.
Because the district court is in a superior position to weigh the evidence, we will not overturn the court in child custody matters unless we determine that there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Czapranski v. Czapranski, 2003 MT 14, ¶ 10, 314 Mont. 55, 63 P.3d 499.
A district court is required to determine child custody matters in accordance with the best interests of the child, taking into consideration a variety of statutory factors including, but not limited to, the parents' wishes, the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, continuity and stability of care, and whether the child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents. Section 40-4-212(1), MCA; In re Marriage of Fishbaugh, 2002 MT 175 ¶ 20, 310 Mont. 519, 52 P.3d 395. While a court must consider the factors enumerated in § 40-4-212(1), MCA, it need not make specific findings relating to each. Fishbaugh, ¶ 20.
Modification of Parenting Plan
We review the underlying findings in support of a district's decision to modify a parenting plan under the clearly erroneous standard. Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100, ¶ 20, 356 Mont. 218, 232 P.3d 888. If the underlying findings are not clearly erroneous, then we will overturn the district court only if there is a clear abuse of discretion. In re D'Alton, 2009 MT 184, ¶ 7, 351 Mont. 51, 209 P.3d 251.
Two standards of review are relevant in a case involving both a standing master and the district court: the standard the district court applies to the master's report and the standard we apply to the district court's decision. In re the Marriage of Davis, 2016 MT 52, ¶ 4, 382 Mont. 378, 367 P.3d 400. We review a district court's decision de novo to determine whether it applied the correct standard of review to a standing master's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Davis, ¶ 4. A district court reviews a standing master's findings of fact for clear error, and its conclusions of law to determine if they are correct. Davis, ¶ 4.
Child Support
This Court reviews a child support award for abuse of discretion. Stevens v. Stevens, 2011 MT 106, ¶ 6, 360 Mont. 344, 253 P.3d 877. A presumption exists in favor of the trial court's determination of child support and we will not overturn its findings unless the court abused its discretion. Stevens, ¶ 6.
Modification of Child Support
In child support modification cases, a district court's findings of fact are reviewed to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether the district court's conclusions are correct. In re Marriage of Damschen, 2011 MT 297, ¶ 22, 363 Mont. 19, 265 P.3d 1245. Where a modification of child support is made pursuant to § 40-4-208(2)(b)(i), MCA, a district court's determinations regarding substantial and continuing changed circumstances and unconscionability are discretionary. As a result, we review those determinations for abuse of discretion. Damschen, ¶ 22.
We review a district court's findings of fact in a parental termination case to determine whether the findings are clearly erroneous. In re B.J.T.H., 2015 MT 6, ¶ 10, 378 Mont. 14, 340 P.3d 557. A court's conclusions of law in such a case are reviewed for correctness, and its decision to terminate parental rights is a discretionary ruling reviewed for an abuse of discretion. B.J.T.H., ¶ 10.
A parent or legal guardian's right to revoke a relinquishment and consent to adoption is dictated by statute. Section 42-2-410, MCA. A district court's interpretation and application of statute is a conclusion of law. We review a district court's conclusions of law for correctness. In re Adoption of S.R.T., 2011 MT 219, ¶ 11, 362 Mont. 39, 260 P.3d 177.
This Court reviews a district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. In re Estate of Ober, 2003 MT 7, ¶ 7, 314 Mont. 20, 62 P.3d 1114. When reviewing a district court's conclusions of law, we determine whether the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Ober, ¶ 7.
For purposes of Section 40-4-208(5), MCA, the question of whether a child is emancipated is a question of fact to be determined by the court. If emancipation can be established, a parent generally will have no further duty to support the child. Prior to the age of eighteen, however, there is a presumption against the emancipation of a child, and the burden of establishing emancipation is on the party asserting it. In re Marriage of Bordner, 220 Mont. 339, 343, 715 P.2d 436, 438, (1986).