In re Marriage of Pfennigs

11 Citing cases

  1. Stanley v. Lemire

    334 Mont. 489 (Mont. 2006)   Cited 89 times

    ¶ 77 Accordingly, because each party prevailed on different issues, neither party was entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 70-24-442, MCA. See Winters v. Winters, 2004 MT 82, ¶ 59, 320 Mont. 459, ¶ 59, 87 P.3d 1005, ¶ 59 (observing that a contractual provision awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party is not effective when each party prevailed on different issues (citing In re Marriage of Pfennigs, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 42, 296 Mont. 242, ¶ 42, 989 P.2d 327, ¶ 42)); cf. Empire Development Co. v. Johnson, 236 Mont. 433, 441, 770 P.2d 525, 530 (1989) ("[W]here the parties have mutually breached the same contract, the District Court did not err by refusing to grant either party attorney fees."). We therefore reverse the District Court on this issue.

  2. In re Marriage of Winters

    320 Mont. 459 (Mont. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 59 We agree with the result reached by the District Court. In In re Marriage of Pfennigs, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 42, 296 Mont. 242, ¶ 42, 989 P.2d 327, ¶ 42, we held that a contractual provision awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party in a divorce action was not effective when each party prevailed on different issues. The same is true in this case in that Terri failed to prevail on her contempt motion and Mike failed to prevail on his motion to dismiss.

  3. In re Marriage of Snow v. Snow

    49 P.3d 610 (Mont. 2002)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 28 In order for Eric to properly raise an issue in his opening brief, he must list his contentions with respect to the issues presented and the reasons therefor with citation to the authorities relied on. This Court has repeatedly held that we will not consider unsupported issues or arguments. In re Custody of Krause, 2001 MT 37, ¶ 32, 304 Mont. 202, ¶ 32, 19 P.3d 811, ¶ 32 (citing In re Marriage of Pfennings, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 32, 296 Mont. 242, ¶ 32, 989 P.2d 327, ¶ 32). "[I]t is not this Court's obligation to conduct legal research on appellant's behalf, to guess as to his precise position, or to develop legal analysis that may lend support to his position."

  4. E. H. Oftedal and Sons, Inc. v. State

    308 Mont. 50 (Mont. 2002)   Cited 11 times
    Allowing reformation of a contract where a contractor had underbid by such a large amount that the other party was on notice of the mistaken bid

    ¶ 47 Reformation of a contract is an equitable remedy which allows a court to revise a contract to reflect the true intentions of the parties. In re Marriage of Pfennigs, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 31, 296 Mont. 242, ¶ 31, 989 P.2d 327, ¶ 31. The grounds for reformation of a contract in Montana are fraud, mutual mistake or unilateral mistake of which the other party knew or suspected, which results in a contract that does not truly express the intention of the parties.

  5. In re Marriage of Hochhalter

    307 Mont. 261 (Mont. 2001)   Cited 12 times

    Ultimately, "the appellant has the duty to establish error by the district court." In re Marriage of Pfennigs, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 33, 296 Mont. 242, ¶ 33, 989 P.2d 327, ¶ 33 (citation omitted). Because Clyde points to no record evidence of the status or existence of this Washington National account since 1987, we conclude he has failed to establish error by the District Court in this regard.

  6. In re Custody of Krause

    19 P.3d 811 (Mont. 2001)   Cited 22 times
    Recognizing that the person appointed as a guardian ad litem may not have interest adverse to those of the ward

    ¶ 32 The argument portion of an appellate brief must contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented with citations to the authorities relied on. Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P. This Court has repeatedly held that we will not consider unsupported issues or arguments. See In re Pfennings, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 32, 296 Mont. 242, ¶ 32, 989 P.2d 327, ¶ 32, and the cases cited therein. ¶ 33 Instead of addressing the stated issue, Krause argues that, by publishing information about Krause's DUI citation and excessive blood alcohol level in a nonconfidential order, the District Court violated provisions of the Montana Criminal Justice Information Act of 1979 (Act).

  7. In re Marriage of Payne

    2021 MT 20 (Mont. 2021)

    ¶8 This Court interprets "property settlement agreements associated with marital dissolutions in accordance with the law of contracts." In re Marriage of Pfennigs, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 13, 296 Mont. 242, 989 P.2d 327; see also § 40-4-201(5), MCA (2019). The construction and interpretation of a contract and whether a provision presents an ambiguity are questions of law subject to de novo review.

  8. In re Wyrick

    288 P.3d 232 (Mont. 2012)

    The District Court lacked authority to extend the modification to any date before April 10, 2009. In re Marriage of Pfennigs, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 23, 296 Mont. 242, 989 P.2d 327. ¶ 25 Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it calculated Donald's child support obligations?

  9. Walker v. Tate

    DA 11-0421 (Mont. Feb. 1, 2012)

    " "Whether child support is awarded retroactively to the date of notice of a motion for modification is clearly within the discretion of the district court." In re Marriage of Pfennigs, 1999 MT 250, ¶ 23, 296 Mont. 242, 989 P.2d 327 (citations omitted). We will not disturb a district court's discretionary ruling unless the court "acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice."

  10. Johnson v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch.

    CV 13-18-BU-DLC (D. Mont. Apr. 26, 2017)

    Even if a party prevails in one respect, the party may not be entitled to fees because it must have prevailed in total. In re Marriage of Pfennigs, 989 P.2d 327, 334 (Mont. 1999) ("[N]either party is totally successful on appeal and, as a result, neither is the prevailing party for purposes of the Agreement's attorney fees provision"). Additionally, the Montana Supreme Court has recognized that even though Mont. Code Ann. § 27-8-313 does not contain a specific attorney fee provision, it gives a court the ability to grant "supplemental relief" when equitable considerations support that award.