Marriage of Steyh, 2015 MT 193 (July 7, 2015) (Cotter, J.) (5-0, rev’d)
Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in holding that William’s statements made in the March 2012 dissolution hearing were judicial admissions; and (2) whether the district court erred in precluding William from presenting evidence of the value of the real property based on the judicial admissions.
Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.
Reversed and remanded
Facts: Julie petitioned for dissolution and included a proposal for distribution of the marital assets, under which William would have been awarded the couple’s house and property on Hobson Street in Butte. William elected to default.
The district court held a final dissolution hearing at which both parties appeared pro se.…