IN RE: the MARRIAGE OF: Shawn M. STUTZMAN (2024)

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 Kris Stutzman appeals in this dissolution matter, challenging the District Court's post-judgment order of December 7, 2023, which denied Kris’ second motion for extension of time and granted Appellee Shawn Stutzman's emergency motion for sale of the marital home. We affirm.

¶3 The parties were married in 2008 and share three children. Both parties filed petitions for dissolution in 2022, but ultimately the matter proceeded within this case. Initially, there was extensive litigation regarding parenting and property issues, but the parties were able to reach agreement whereby they entered a Stipulated Final Parenting Plan and a Marital and Property Settlement Agreement. They requested the District Court approve and incorporate these agreements into a final decree of dissolution, which the District Court did on May 11, 2023. Concerning the marital home, which was held in Shawn's name, the incorporated Marital and Property Settlement Agreement provided as follows:

The parties own Real Property located [in Bigfork, Montana]. Said Real Property shall be distributed to [Kris], subject to the debt thereon, which [Kris] shall assume. [Kris] shall refinance or assume the mortgage encumbering the Real Property to remove [Shawn] from the indebtedness within ninety (90) days from the date the Court issues its Decree of Dissolution (subject to verifiable delays beyond the parties’ control, such as the bank's/finance company's inability to complete the process in that time frame).

․

Beginning December 1, 2021, [Kris] shall be solely responsible for the mortgage, real estate taxes, insurances ․ and any other expenses related to the Property

․

If [Kris] fails to assume the mortgage or obtain refinancing on the Property within ninety (90) days from the date of Decree of Dissolution, the Property shall be immediately placed on the market for sale until sold. However, [Kris] shall still have the option to refinance the Property in her sole name and remove [Shawn] from the indebtedness at any time prior to the sale of the property, which shall then terminate her obligation to sell the Property.

¶4 On July 18, 2023, Shawn filed a motion for contempt and a motion to allow him to list and sell the property, claiming that Kris had surreptitiously obtained a COVID-related forbearance of the mortgage payments instead of making the payments, despite the property being held in his name. When the initial 90-day timeframe for the property's sale expired, Kris filed a motion for extension of time. Over Shawn's objection, the District Court granted the motion and extended the deadline by 60 days from the date of the order, or to October 23, 2023, but ruled that Shawn's motion for contempt would be held in abeyance until the end of the 60-day extension of time, and that, “[i]n the event that [Kris] does not refinance or assume the mortgage within the 60 day extension period, then the real property shall immediately be turned over to [Shawn] to sell, and [Kris] shall cooperate in any documents requiring her signature to sell the real property.”

¶5 On October 25, 2023, Kris filed another motion for extension of time for sale or refinancing of the home. In response, Shawn filed an answer brief opposing Kris’ motion and an emergency motion for an order permitting sale of the home, arguing that Kris had not made progress on the sale or demonstrated the ability to refinance the mortgage, and had resisted efforts by Shawn to move forward with a sale. In an order entered on December 7, 2023, the District Court denied Kris’ motion for another extension of time and granted Shawn's emergency motion permitting him to proceed with sale of the home.

¶6 On December 27, 2023, Kris filed an appeal to this Court “from the Judgment entered on December 7, 2023.” Extensive documentation related to the marital home sale was attached to her notice of appeal, and was likewise attached to her opening brief. Kris simultaneously filed an emergency motion for a stay of the judgment in this Court, which was denied by this Court's order entered on January 9, 2024.

¶7 We review a district court's discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion. In a dissolution proceeding, a district court abuses its discretion if it “act[s] arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment” or “exceed[s] the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” In re Marriage of Pospisil, 2000 MT 132, ¶ 19, 299 Mont. 527, 1 P.3d 364.

¶8 Kris’ appeal is taken from the District Court's order of December 7, 2023, which denied her motion for a second extension of time to sell or refinance the property, and granted Shawn's motion to proceed with the sale. Consistent therewith, the attachments to Kris’ briefing are related to this property issue. However, Kris’ appellate arguments broadly challenge the decree of dissolution as a whole, including her allegations that she was coerced into the settlement agreements that were incorporated into the decree, that she suffered judicial bias, and that there were errors made in the process of establishing the parenting plan. She contends “she was threatened by the Appellee and his counsel, with allegations of parental alienation if she did not accept.” However, not only do these matters go beyond the appealed order, they raise issues that were not litigated before the District Court. Kris challenges an ex parte order entered by the District Court on December 21, 2023, requiring her to vacate the property as violating due process because she did not receive prior notice of it. However, the order was premised upon sworn declarations from Shawn and from a real estate agent that Kris was failing to cooperate with their efforts to sell the home and had rebuffed their attempts to access the home on multiple occasions. In its order of December 7, 2023, the District Court had required Kris’ cooperation.

¶9 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review. This appeal presents no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent or modify existing precedent, but rather involves a matter of discretion. We conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion.

¶10 Affirmed.

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

We concur: MIKE McGRATH, C.J. JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, J. BETH BAKER, J. LAURIE McKINNON, J.