Quinn v. Quinn, 80-129
Decision Date | 21 January 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80-129,80-129 |
Parties | In re the Marriage of Elaine Kieffer QUINN, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Daniel J. QUINN, Respondent and Respondent. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Morrow, Sedivy, Olson & Scully, Bozeman, for petitioner and appellant.
Cummins & Erb, Helena, for respondent and respondent.
Copetitioner Elaine Quinn appeals from an order of contempt of court in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County and from the court order dismissing her petition for modification of the decree of dissolution which ended her marriage to copetitioner Daniel Quinn.
On September 15, 1978, Elaine and Daniel Quinn filed a joint petition for dissolution of their marriage in the Beaverhead County District Court. One month later, the court entered a decree of dissolution. The court incorporated into its decree the terms of a written separation agreement made by the Quinns which divided their property and specified terms of custody regarding their children Deirdre, Colby and Carson Quinn. The child custody provisions of the Quinn's separation agreement provide as follows:
One year after the entry of this decree of dissolution and the execution of this custody agreement, Elaine Quinn filed a petition to modify the child custody arrangement. She requested that the court terminate her husband's custody rights and that custody of the children be placed with her alone. In an accompanying affidavit, she alleged that the best interests of the children were not being served by the present custody arrangement.
At the time Elaine Quinn filed her modification petition, she was living in Bozeman, Montana, and attending Montana State University. She had physical custody of Carson Quinn. Deirdre and Colby Quinn were staying with their father at the family home near Dillon, Montana. Since the divorce, however, all three children have been passed back and forth between parents, a number of times.
In response to the modification petition and in an attempt to recover Carson from his ex-wife, Daniel moved the District Court to hold a hearing requiring Elaine to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court. Daniel claimed that by the terms of the separation agreement, he was awarded sole custody of all three children. He contended that his wife was violating their agreement and the court decree by keeping Carson Quinn in Bozeman without his permission. The District Court agreed with Daniel's interpretation of the agreement and found Elaine in contempt of court for not returning Carson to Dillon. This contempt order was stayed by the court pending its decision regarding Elaine's modification petition.
On February 19, 1980, the Court held a hearing on the modification petition. Following the hearing, the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Custody and Support of B.T.S., In re
...criterion important to an award of joint custody, is the geographic proximity of the parents' residences. In Quinn v. Quinn (Mont.1981), 622 P.2d 230, 38 St.Rep. 93, this Court remanded an award of joint custody to determine whether the best interests of the minor children were being served......
-
In the Matter of The EState Henry Hicks
...enforced and interpreted under contract law. In re Marriage of Mease, 2004 MT 59, ¶ 57, 320 Mont. 229, 92 P.3d 1148; Quinn v. Quinn, 191 Mont. 133, 622 P.2d 230 (1981); § 40–4–201(5), MCA. Parenting plans are contained within separation agreements and receive the same contractual enforcemen......
-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF ROLF, 99-420.
...under the law of contracts. In re Marriage of Woodford (1992), 254 Mont. 501, 504, 839 P.2d 574, 576 (citing In re Marriage of Quinn (1981), 191 Mont. 133, 136, 622 P.2d 230, 232; § 40-4-201(5), MCA). See also Heath v. Heath (1995), 272 Mont. 522, 527, 901 P.2d 590, 593. If the language of ......
-
Marriage of Woodford, In re, 92-053
...settlement agreements are considered contracts, and therefore. must be construed under the law of contracts. In re Marriage of Quinn (1981), 191 Mont. 133, 622 P.2d 230; Section 40-4-201(5), MCA. If the language of a property settlement agreement is clear and explicit, it controls the agree......