Marriage of Bowman

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: May 16, 1991
• Docket: 90-449
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 90-449 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ROBERT M. BOWMAN, Petitioner and Appellant, AND ROSE-MARIE BOWMAN, Respondent and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable Edward McLean, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Terry A. Wallace, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Darla J. Keck; Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: April 4, 1991 Decided: May 16, 1991 ed: C/ G (' d ~ i lt j l&

B Clerk Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Robert W. Bowman appeals from an order of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County. This order enforced the parties' separation agreement and required appellant to pay the sum of $13,000, plus interest, to the respondent. The court also ordered appellant to pay the sum of $1,800, plus interest, for child support. On reviewing the appellant's arguments, it is clear that his contentions concerning abandonment of the separation agreement and the propriety of the award of child support have been conclusively determined by this Court. See In re Marriage of Bowman (1987), 226 Mont. 99, 733 P.2d 197. His reargument of these issues is therefore without merit. Furthermore, appellant's contention that his fulfillment of the payment terms of the separation agreement is legally impossible is similarly without merit. Appellant ceased making payments, under that agreement, in July of 1985. At that time he was still employed and fully capable of making the required payments. For the above reasons, there is no support for this appeal. It is dismissed and let remittitur issue forthwith. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to West Publishing Company. W e Concur:

/ Chief J u s t i c e