modification rule in Montana

1986We have held that “the conditions and circumstances of the parties must be examined and determined at the time of the modification hearing, and may not be based upon mere speculative future conditions or possible conditions.” Gall v. Gall (1980), 187 Mont. 17, 20 , 608 P.2d 496, 498 .

1986We have held that “the conditions and circumstances of the parties must be examined and determined at the time of the modification hearing, and may not be based upon mere speculative future conditions or possible conditions.” Gall v. Gall (1980), 187 Mont. 17, 20 , 608 P.2d 496, 498 .

1993This rule, which is a modification of the rule originally developed in Just, 602 P.2d at 961 , requires that: 1.

1993The four-part rule set forth in Matt is a modification of the rule originally developed in State v. Just (1979), 184 Mont. 262 , 602 P.2d 957 .

1985We reiterated the point in Duffey v. Duffey (Mont. 1981), 631 P.2d 697 , 38 St.Rep 1105, when we vacated an ord.er which premised increased child support on the speculation that certain social security benefits "were sure to increase in the future.l1 While both Gall and Duffey address the child support obligation between divorced parents, and the present case involves a child support obligation of parents who are still married, we see no substantive distinction which would preclude an analogy to the present case determination that the amount of support should not be based upon speculative cond

1985In its finding of fact No. 5, the District Court provided: “[W.R.] is not working at the present time, but has worked in the past.” Finding of fact No. 8 provided: “[A.R. and W.R.] are financially able to support the cost of [L.R.’s] placement in at the Achievement Home based on [A.R.’s] monthly income and [W.R.’s] ability to work.” The parents cite our opinion in Gall v. Gall (1980), 187 Mont. 17, 20 , 608 P.2d 496, 498 , which provides: “[t]he conditions and circumstances of the parties must be examined and determined at the time of the modification hearing, and may not be based upon mere sp

1980See Scott v. Scott (1979), 121 Ariz. 492 , 591 P.2d 980 ; In re Marriage of Cobb (1977), 68 Cal.App.3d 855 , 137 Cal.Rptr. 670 .

1980See Scott v. Scott (1979), 121 Ariz. 492 , 591 P.2d 980 ; In re Marriage of Cobb (1977), 68 Cal.App.3d 855 , 137 Cal.Rptr. 670 .

1946See Kern v. Payne, 65 Mont. 325 , 211 Pac. 767 ; First National Bank v. Sorenson, 65 Mont. 1 , 210 Pac. 900 .

1946See Kern v. Payne, 65 Mont. 325 , 211 Pac. 767 ; First National Bank v. Sorenson, 65 Mont. 1 , 210 Pac. 900 .

1936It is respondent's position that a family allowance paid to a widow out of her deceased husband's estate is not such an allowance as the provisions of the statute require to be included in her $17,500 widow's exemption; that the enactment of the 1923 statute did not effect a modification of the rule laid down in the Blackburn Case ( 51 Mont. 234 , 152 P. 31 ), so as to render the amount of a family allowance paid to a widow out of her husband's estate no longer deductible from the gross value of the estate in arriving at the value thereof for inheritance tax purposes; and that, therefore, the

1936It is respondent's position that a family allowance paid to a widow out of her deceased husband's estate is not such an allowance as the provisions of the statute require to be included in her $17,500 widow's exemption; that the enactment of the 1923 statute did not effect a modification of the rule laid down in the Blackburn Case ( 51 Mont. 234 , 152 P. 31 ), so as to render the amount of a family allowance paid to a widow out of her husband's estate no longer deductible from the gross value of the estate in arriving at the value thereof for inheritance tax purposes; and that, therefore, the

1931As to the assertion that “for all practical purposes” a national bank is deemed a citizen of the state in which it does business, the federal ease cited ( 199 U. S. 148 , 4 Ann.

1909(People v. Azoff, 105 Cal. 632 , 39 Pac. 59 ; People v. Soap, 127 Cal. 408 , 59 Pac. 771 .) The sections of our statute cited were adopted from that state; and, since the interpretations given to them embodies the better rule, we approve and adopt it.

1909(People v. Azoff, 105 Cal. 632 , 39 Pac. 59 ; People v. Soap, 127 Cal. 408 , 59 Pac. 771 .) The sections of our statute cited were adopted from that state; and, since the interpretations given to them embodies the better rule, we approve and adopt it.

1909(People v. Azoff, 105 Cal. 632 , 39 Pac. 59 ; People v. Soap, 127 Cal. 408 , 59 Pac. 771 .) The sections of our statute cited were adopted from that state; and, since the interpretations given to them embodies the better rule, we approve and adopt it.

1909(People v. Azoff, 105 Cal. 632 , 39 Pac. 59 ; People v. Soap, 127 Cal. 408 , 59 Pac. 771 .) The sections of our statute cited were adopted from that state; and, since the interpretations given to them embodies the better rule, we approve and adopt it.

1900Co., 21 Mont. 487 , 54 Pac. 963 .) Nothing here said is to be understood as a modification of the doctrine of McDonald v. Lannen, 19 Mont. 78 , 47 Pac. 648 , or of Wood v. Lowney, 20 Mont. 273 , 50 Pac. 794 .

1900Co., 21 Mont. 487 , 54 Pac. 963 .) Nothing here said is to be understood as a modification of the doctrine of McDonald v. Lannen, 19 Mont. 78 , 47 Pac. 648 , or of Wood v. Lowney, 20 Mont. 273 , 50 Pac. 794 .

1900Co., 21 Mont. 487 , 54 Pac. 963 .) Nothing here said is to be understood as a modification of the doctrine of McDonald v. Lannen, 19 Mont. 78 , 47 Pac. 648 , or of Wood v. Lowney, 20 Mont. 273 , 50 Pac. 794 .

1900Co., 21 Mont. 487 , 54 Pac. 963 .) Nothing here said is to be understood as a modification of the doctrine of McDonald v. Lannen, 19 Mont. 78 , 47 Pac. 648 , or of Wood v. Lowney, 20 Mont. 273 , 50 Pac. 794 .

1900Co., 21 Mont. 487 , 54 Pac. 963 .) Nothing here said is to be understood as a modification of the doctrine of McDonald v. Lannen, 19 Mont. 78 , 47 Pac. 648 , or of Wood v. Lowney, 20 Mont. 273 , 50 Pac. 794 .

1900Co., 21 Mont. 487 , 54 Pac. 963 .) Nothing here said is to be understood as a modification of the doctrine of McDonald v. Lannen, 19 Mont. 78 , 47 Pac. 648 , or of Wood v. Lowney, 20 Mont. 273 , 50 Pac. 794 .