In re the Marriage of Kimberly Ann Kins Dixon and Michael Arthur Dixon

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s dissolution judgment in a case involving marital-property valuation and distribution, residential custody, and child support. The Court held that proceedings could continue despite the husband’s failure to file a responsive pleading because he actively participated in the case, and it upheld the valuation and distribution of the marital estate, the custody designation, and the child-support award. The decision was designated noncitable precedent and filed as a public document.

Holdings

1. The District Court properly conducted the dissolution proceedings and entered a final decree despite Michael's failure to file a responsive pleading because he otherwise defended and actively participated in the proceedings, and the issue was not timely raised below.
2. The District Court did not err in valuing and distributing the marital estate at or near the time of dissolution, declining to enforce the prior settlement agreement, excluding the condom vending machines for lack of competent valuation evidence, or valuing the family home at $73,500.
3. The District Court did not clearly abuse its discretion by designating Kimberly as Junior's residential custodial parent.
4. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Michael to pay $340 per month in child support, beginning in June 2001, and $500 per month in back support for March through May 2001.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court could conduct dissolution proceedings and enter a final decree despite Michael's failure to file a responsive pleading.
2. Whether the District Court erred in valuing and distributing the marital estate, including its treatment of the parties' prior settlement agreement, post-separation assets and debts, condom vending machines, and the family home.
3. Whether the District Court erred in designating Kimberly as the residential custodial parent of Junior.
4. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in determining child support.

Disposition

affirmed