In re the Marriage of Schmieding

6 Citing cases

  1. Marriage of Jackson

    341 Mont. 227 (Mont. 2008)   Cited 17 times

    Olson, ¶ 12. A trial court must find both substantial and continuing changes and unconscionability before modifying a previous order of support. In re Marriage of Schmieding, 2003 MT 246, ¶ 36, 317 Mont. 320, ¶ 36, 77 P.3d 216, ¶ 36. ¶ 30 We agree with David that the District Court erred in making an award of lifetime maintenance for Peggy. Section 40-4-203(2)(f), MCA, requires a District Court to consider "the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance."

  2. In re Dirnberger

    337 Mont. 56 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    Findings are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial evidence, the court misapprehends the effect of the evidence, or this Court's review of the record convinces us that a mistake has been made. In re Marriage of Schmieding, 2003 MT 246, ¶ 14, 317 Mont. 320, ¶ 14, 77 P.3d 216, ¶ 14. ¶ 20 If the findings are not clearly erroneous, we will affirm the district court's distribution of property absent an abuse of discretion.

  3. Marriage of Olson

    108 P.3d 493 (Mont. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 9 We apply a clearly erroneous standard in reviewing a district court's findings of fact regarding maintenance modification. In re Marriage of Schmieding, 2003 MT 246, ¶ 14, 317 Mont. 320, ¶ 14, 77 P.3d 216, ¶ 14. Findings are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehends the effect of the evidence, or if our review of the record convinces us a mistake has been committed.

  4. Kelly v. Camp

    2022 MT 60 (Mont. 2022)

    "While we apply a clearly erroneous standard in reviewing a district court's findings of fact regarding maintenance and modification, we review a district court's determinations regarding substantial and continuing changed circumstances and unconscionability for an abuse of discretion." In re Marriage of Schmieding, 2003 MT 246, ¶ 14, 317 Mont. 320, 77 P.3d 216 (citations omitted).

  5. In re Marriage of Krantz

    2021 MT 119 (Mont. 2021)

    ¶8 District courts may modify a previously imposed maintenance obligation only "upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unconscionable." Section 40-4-208(2)(b)(i), MCA; In re Marriage of Schmieding, 2003 MT 246, ¶¶ 35-36, 317 Mont. 320, 77 P.3d 216. As used in § 40-4-208(2)(b)(i), MCA, the term "unconscionable" is undefined and we have previously held that courts must thus interpret and apply it upon "scrutiny of the underlying facts" of each particular case.

  6. Adami v. Nelson (In re J.K.N.A.)

    398 Mont. 72 (Mont. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    Weibert , ¶ 10. ¶51 In determining necessity, the factors considered are: 1) the requesting party’s inability to pay her own attorney’s fees; 2) the other party’s ability to pay attorney’s fees; and 3) the relative financial positions of the parties. Schmieding v. Schmieding , 2000 MT 237, ¶ 26, 301 Mont. 336, 9 P.3d 52, reversed in part on other grounds , 2003 MT 246, 317 Mont. 320, 77 P. 3d 216. The nonexclusive factors included in determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees are: 1) the amount and character of the services rendered; 2) the labor, time, and trouble involved; 3) the character and importance of the litigation in which the services were rendered; 4) the professional skill and experience required; 5) the character and standing of the attorneys in their profession; and 6) the result secured by the services of the attorneys. Morning Star Enters. v. R. H. Grover, Inc. , 247 Mont. 105, 113, 805 P.2d 553, 558 (1991).