Pratt v. Pratt

Idaho Supreme Court

Pratt v. Pratt

584 P.2d 645, 99 Idaho 500, 1978 Ida. LEXIS 440

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 28, 1978

DocketNo. 12628

StatusPublished

This text of 584 P.2d 645 (Pratt v. Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pratt v. Pratt, 584 P.2d 645, 99 Idaho 500, 1978 Ida. LEXIS 440 (Idaho 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

BAKES, Justice.

Margaret and Thomas Pratt were married in 1952. On September 2,1976, Margaret filed for divorce, alleging that irreconcilable differences had arisen between Thomas and her. In addition to a permanent dissolution of the marriage, Margaret sought division of the couple’s community property, custody of their minor son, Joe, and an award of child support. Thomas opposed the divorce but asked that he be given custody of Joe if it were granted. Following a trial, the district court granted the divorce, awarded custody of Joe and child support to Margaret, and provided for division of the community property.

On appeal, Thomas contends that the trial court erred in granting the divorce, in awarding custody of Joe to Margaret, and in its division of the community property. We have reviewed the record and find substantial support for each of the trial court’s determinations and no abuse of its discretion. Hence, no reversible error was [501]*501committed, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Houska v. Houska, 97 Idaho 316, 543 P.2d 869 (1975); McNett v. McNett, 95 Idaho 59, 501 P.2d 1059 (1972); Barker v. Barker, 92 Idaho 204, 440 P.2d 137 (1968); I.R.C.P. 52(a).

Margaret has requested attorney fees on appeal. Such an award is proper under I.C. § 32-704. See Lovell v. Lovell, 80 Idaho 251, 328 P.2d 71 (1958).

Judgment affirmed. Costs and attorney fees to respondent. I.A.R. 40, 41.

SHEPARD, C. J., and McFADDEN, DONALDSON and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BAKES, Justice.

Margaret and Thomas Pratt were married in 1952. On September 2,1976, Margaret filed for divorce, alleging that irreconcilable differences had arisen between Thomas and her. In addition to a permanent dissolution of the marriage, Margaret sought division of the couple’s community property, custody of their minor son, Joe, and an award of child support. Thomas opposed the divorce but asked that he be given custody of Joe if it were granted. Following a trial, the district court granted the divorce, awarded custody of Joe and child support to Margaret, and provided for division of the community property.

On appeal, Thomas contends that the trial court erred in granting the divorce, in awarding custody of Joe to Margaret, and in its division of the community property. We have reviewed the record and find substantial support for each of the trial court’s determinations and no abuse of its discretion. Hence, no reversible error was [501]*501committed, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Houska v. Houska, 97 Idaho 316, 543 P.2d 869 (1975); McNett v. McNett, 95 Idaho 59, 501 P.2d 1059 (1972); Barker v. Barker, 92 Idaho 204, 440 P.2d 137 (1968); I.R.C.P. 52(a).

Margaret has requested attorney fees on appeal. Such an award is proper under I.C. § 32-704. See Lovell v. Lovell, 80 Idaho 251, 328 P.2d 71 (1958).

Judgment affirmed. Costs and attorney fees to respondent. I.A.R. 40, 41.

SHEPARD, C. J., and McFADDEN, DONALDSON and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 P.2d 645, 99 Idaho 500, 1978 Ida. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-pratt-idaho-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack