Opinion
DA 23-0469
05-29-2024
IN THE MARRIAGE OF BRADLEY JOHN STRECKER. Appellant and Respondent, v. LISA MARIE STRECKER, Appellee and Petitioner.
ORDER
Bradley Strecker (Brad) has filed a petition for a rehearing of our May 7, 2024, decision affirming the District Court's order dividing the marital estate. Lisa Strecker (Lisa) opposes the petition for rehearing.
Brad argues our decision affirmed the District Court's inequitable distribution of the marital estate and did not account for a $180,000 loan to his mother. Lisa responds that the District Court's distribution was equitable and that our decision affirming the District Court considered all aspects of the distribution and was equitable.
Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court seldom grants petitions for rehearing. The Rule makes clear that this Court will entertain a petition for rehearing on very limited grounds. Specifically, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only if the opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," if the opinion "overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case," or if the ''decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by this Court. M. R. App. P. 20(a)(i)-(iii).
Having fully considered Appellant's petition, the Court concludes that rehearing is not warranted under M. R. App. P. 20. The Court did not overlook material facts or issues raised by the parties or fail to address a controlling statute or decision that conflicts with the Memorandum Opinion issued in this matter.
If IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties and counsel of record.