Sara Kae Cox v. Daniel Scott Cox

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Daniel Cox’s motion for relief under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 60 from an order adopting an amended parenting plan. The court held that the motion was untimely in part, that alleged procedural errors and references to disciplinary proceedings did not affect substantial rights, and that recusal and deposition of the presiding judge were unwarranted. The opinion was issued as a noncitable memorandum opinion.

Holdings

1. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Daniel's Rule 60 motion without oral argument because Daniel had already had extensive opportunities to present his evidence and legal arguments, and he failed to show that the absence of oral argument affected a substantial right.
2. Any improper reference to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's conclusions did not warrant relief because the District Court denied the Rule 60 motion on independent grounds and the references did not affect Daniel's substantial rights or the outcome.
3. The District Court did not err by allowing Judge Langton to preside because Daniel's allegations concerned the judge's rulings and administrative actions in the case, and the record did not establish improper ex parte communications or a basis requiring recusal.
4. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by quashing Daniel's subpoena because Daniel did not move for leave to take the deposition after final judgment and did not show that the deposition was necessary to prevent a failure or delay of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Daniel's Rule 60 motion without oral argument.
2. Whether references to Office of Disciplinary Counsel proceedings affected Daniel's substantial rights.
3. Whether the presiding judge was required to recuse himself because of alleged ex parte communications and his potential status as a material witness.
4. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by quashing Daniel's subpoena for the deposition of the presiding judge.

Disposition

affirmed