Hass v. Hass
This text of 2004 MT 246N (Hass v. Hass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
No. 04-016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2004 MT 246N
JAMES D. HASS,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
SHIRLEY HASS,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Deer Lodge, Cause No. DR 96-75 The Honorable Ted L. Mizner, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Brian T. Atcheson, Esq., Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana
For Respondent:
Patrick T. Gallagher, Skakles & Gallagher, Anaconda, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 18, 2004
Decided: September 8, 2004
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included
in this Court’s quarterly list published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 James D. Hass (James) appeals the judgment of the Third Judicial District Court, Deer
Lodge County, enforcing a Decree of Dissolution which stated that James was obligated to
pay certain debts. The District Court found, in pertinent part, that James had failed to pay
the debts, thereby concluding that Shirley Hass was “entitled to full reimbursement and
payment of the remainder amount [of the outstanding debts].”
¶3 James raises three issues on appeal, which we decline to address. Review of the
record shows that James did not raise these issues at the District Court level. We have
repeatedly held that we will not review issues raised here for the first time on appeal, as it
is unfair to fault the District Court for something that it never had opportunity to decide.
In re Marriage of Killpack, 2004 MT 55, ¶ 10, 320 Mont. 186, ¶ 10, 87 P.3d 393, ¶ 10.
¶4 Therefore, the District Court’s decision is affirmed.
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
2 We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ JIM REGNIER /S/ JIM RICE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2004 MT 246N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hass-v-hass-mont-2004.