Preview:

No. 94-481
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1995

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF VICKIE A. SNEDIGAR, Petitioner and Respondent, and HENRY 0. SNEDIGAR, Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Roosevelt,
The Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Henry 0. Snedigar, Pro Se, Payette, Idaho
For Respondent: Carol Johns, Attorney at Law, Wolf Point, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 9, 1995
Decided: March I,
1995 Filed:

Justice W. William Leaphart
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Henry 0. Snedigar, appearing pro se, appeals from a dissolution of marriage, property distribution and custody decree entered in the District Court for the Fifteenth Judicial District, Roosevelt County, Montana. We affirm.
The issues are as follows:
1.
Did the District Court properly determine custody and visitation?

2.
Did the District Court properly determine Henry's child support obligation?

3.
Did the District Court equitably divide the marital assets?

4.
Was Henry denied a fair hearing in the District Court dissolution proceeding?


The parties were married on October 9, 1976, in Roosevelt County, Montana. Two children were born to the parties during the course of the marriage, Russell A. Snedigar, age eleven and Annie
M. Snedigar, age nine. The parties separated on April 23, 1992 when Henry moved to Payette, Idaho in order to take a new job. On December 16, 1992, Vickie Snedigar filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. At the same time, she requested and received a temporary restraining order and custody order. After a hearing before the District Court on June 27, 1994, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree of dissolution of marriage on August 15, 1994.
In its decree, the District Court awarded Vickie sole custody
2

of the minor children subject to scheduled visitation with Henry. Henry was ordered to pay $187.50 per child per month pursuant to the Montana Child Support Guidelines. The court awarded Vickie the family home in Culbertson, Montana, as well as all personal property in her possession, including a 1989 Ford Tempo and retirement accounts and bonds which are in her name. Henry was awarded the rental unit in Culbertson, Montana, as well as personal property in his possession including a 1984 Ford 4 x
4, a 1924 Model-T, Model-A, boat, trailer, motor, flatbed trailer, retirement accounts and bonds which are in his name, and all accounts including his employer-paid retirement account, which he established at the parties' separation. Henry was also held responsible for payment of his student loan.
1. Did the District Court err in determining childcustody and visitation? On appeal we review whether the district court's findings
concerning custody are supported by substantial credible evidence. In re
Marriage of Kovash
(1993),
260 Mont. 44, 53, 858 P.2d
351,
356. The district court's findings concerning custody will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Anderson (1993),
260 Mont. 246, 252, 859 P.2d
451, 454. Because the district court is in the best position to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, its judgment will not be substituted unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Marriaqe
of Anderson, 859 P.2d
at 454.
On appeal, Henry claims that he wants "a
visitation that will
3

allow him a set time with his children." The District Court set forth very detailed findings of fact in which it considered the best interest of the children factors as required by

Download b4440671-7ad3-4296-8f37-b54d1e7bc6e7.pdf

Montana Law