Marriage of Park

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: December 3, 1980
• Docket: 80-154
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 80-154 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: SHERYL L. PARK, Petitioner and Respondent, VS . STERLING C. PARK, Appellant and Respondent.

,Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Deer Lodge, Montana Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Michael J. McKeon, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : C. F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana

Submitted on briefs: November 6 , 1980 Decided :Fry r. , i 1, . 3 1980 M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court.

S t e r l i n g Park appeals f r o m a D e e r Lodge County D i s t r i c t

C o u r t o r d e r d i r e c t i n g h i m t o pay m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t f o r

h i s w i f e and c h i l d r e n .

The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on A p r i l 20, 1971, i n Orem, Utah.

T h r e e c h i l d r e n w e r e b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e and w e r e o f m i n o r age

a t t h e t i m e t h e c a u s e was f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t . A f t e r hear-

i n g t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n g S t e r l i n g P a r k t o pay

$ 1 3 5 p e r week f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f h i s w i f e

S h e r y l and t h e c o u p l e ' s t h r e e c h i l d r e n . No s p e c i a l findings

o f f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w were e n t e r e d w i t h t h e judgment.

T h e i s s u e we a r e a s k e d t o a d d r e s s i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t judgment i s s u f f i c i e n t and p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d . We f i n d t h a t

i t was n o t .

Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., commands t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o f i n d

t h e f a c t s s p e c i a l l y and s t a t e s e p a r a t e l y i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w .

T h e f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 52, M.R.Civ.P., i s fatal to the

v a l i d i t y o f the order.

T h i s C o u r t d i s d a i n s i t s r o l e as t h e c o r r e c t o r o f m i s t a k e s

t o o obvious t o question. We g r o w w e a r y o f c o n t i n u a l d i s r e g a r d

o f t h e m o s t b a s i c r u l e s o f p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e . These r u l e s

are clear, a n d t h i s C o u r t e x p e c t s and demands t h a t t h e y be

followed.

T h e o r d e r i s v a c a t e d and and r e m a n d e d f o r t h e e n t r y o f a

proper order. W concur: e