Background
Roberta Jean Scobee and George Harrison White resolved their property and parenting disputes in a December 2022 dissolution decree. They agreed that Scobee would pay child support for their two children beginning in September 2021, with the Child Support Services Division calculating the amount. In January 2024, Scobee consented to an administrative modification setting support at $314 per month per child, retroactive to September 2021.
After Scobee failed to pay the stipulated support, the District Court found her in contempt and ultimately ordered her to serve five days on the Yellowstone County Sheriff’s Labor Detail. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed that order in an earlier appeal. Scobee later filed an omnibus motion seeking Rule 60 relief, sanctions, emergency and enforcement relief, and amendment of the parenting plan, followed by a separate Rule 60 motion based on a newly located recording of a June 2018 administrative child-support hearing. The District Court denied both motions, and Scobee appealed those denials.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the February 3 and February 26, 2026 orders. It held that Scobee’s Rule 60(b)(3) attempt to reopen the 2022 judgment was filed outside the one-year deadline and did not identify fraud or misconduct that prevented a fair presentation of her case. Her parenting-plan amendment request also failed because she did not satisfy Montana’s statutory requirements, including establishing changed circumstances and the children’s best interests, submitting the required affidavit, identifying the provisions to be amended, and providing a proposed amended plan. Although the cruise-related communications supported her claim that White violated parenting-time rules, her omnibus filing did not adequately develop a request for a specific enforcement remedy.
The newly discovered 2018 recording did not justify Rule 60 relief because Scobee had participated in that hearing and later accepted independent child-support obligations through the 2022 settlement and 2024 administrative modification. She also failed to make a specific proffer showing that the recording undermined those later agreements or that the District Court’s inability to play the recording caused prejudice. Her financial-misrepresentation claims likewise failed because she did not identify a qualifying false declaration, a specific material misrepresentation, or record evidence properly presented to the District Court. The Supreme Court also declined White’s request to designate Scobee a vexatious litigant because the record lacked findings supporting a statewide filing restriction.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from denial of Rule 60 relief does not revive appellate review of the underlying judgment or other orders for which the appeal period has expired.
- A motion to amend a Montana parenting plan must satisfy the statutory threshold requirements, including a supporting affidavit, facts showing changed circumstances and the child’s best interests, and a proposed amended plan.
- Newly located evidence does not warrant post-judgment relief when it does not undermine the later agreements creating the obligation at issue or when the movant cannot show resulting prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that post-judgment family-law relief must be pursued through the correct procedure and supported by a record tied to the particular order under review. Allegations of later parenting-plan violations do not establish that an earlier stipulated judgment was procured by fraud, though they may support a properly documented prospective motion to enforce or amend the plan.
The opinion is a noncitable memorandum decision and does not serve as precedent, but it illustrates the procedural hurdles facing parties who combine distinct requests for Rule 60 relief, parenting-plan amendment, and enforcement in a single filing.