← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 885478

Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LINDA K. HARKIN
Extracted reporter citation
pending
Docket / number
99-080
QDRO relevance 5/5Retirement relevance 2/5Family-law relevance 5/5gold label pending
Research-use warning: This page contains machine-draft public annotations generated from public opinion text. The headnote is not Willie-approved gold-label work product and is not legal advice. Verify the full opinion and current law before relying on it.

Machine-draft headnote

Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 885478 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.

Retrieval annotation

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.

Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

Evidence quotes

QDRO

n entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶2 This appeal raises the following issues: ¶3 1. Whether the District Court erred in entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order? ¶4 2. Whether the District Court erred in dividing the marital estate? ¶5 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding maintenance? ¶6 4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees? FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶7 The Respondent and Appellant, John E. Harkin (\Jack\")

domestic relations order

by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶2 This appeal raises the following issues: ¶3 1. Whether the District Court erred in entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order? ¶4 2. Whether the District Court erred in dividing the marital estate? ¶5 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding maintenance? ¶6 4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees? FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶7 The Respondent and Appellant, John E. Harkin (\Jack\")

Source and provenance

Source type
courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
Permissions posture
public
Generated status
machine draft public v0
Review status
gold label pending
Jurisdiction metadata
US
Deterministic extraction
docket: 99-080
Generated at
May 14, 2026

Related public corpus pages

Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.

Clean opinion text

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-080%20Opinion.htm

 No. 99-080

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 2000 MT 105

 299 Mont. 298

 99 P. 2d 969

 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF

 LINDA K. HARKIN,

 Petitioner and Respondent,

 and

 JOHN E. HARKIN,

 Respondent and Appellant.

 APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Flathead,

 The Honorable Katherine R. Curtis, Judge presiding.

 COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 P. Mars Scott and Patrick G. Sandefur, Mulroney, Delaney & Scott,

 Missoula, Montana

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-080%20Opinion.htm (1 of 17)3/28/2007 11:43:40 AM
 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-080%20Opinion.htm

 For Respondent:

 David L. Astle, Astle & Astle, Kalispell, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: November 18, 1999

 Decided: April 27, 2000

 Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

Justice Jim Regnier delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1 John E. Harkin appeals the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of
Dissolution entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. We affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶2 This appeal raises the following issues:

¶3 1. Whether the District Court erred in entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order?

¶4 2. Whether the District Court erred in dividing the marital estate?

¶5 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding maintenance?

¶6 4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees?

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶7 The Respondent and Appellant, John E. Harkin (\Jack\")