Legal Opinion · Dissent

DeLancey v. DeLancey

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1986No. 15792Published

1DissentShepard, Justice

Because I take a different view and a different analysis than that of the majority, I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff was awarded as her sole and separate property, an automobile worth approximately $7,000.00, and it was clearly the intent of the divorce decree that she was to receive that vehicle free and clear of the then existing encumbrance at Pioneer. That intent is demonstrated by the requirement contained in the decree that the defendant pay off the indebtedness at the rate of $197.00 per month.

It is well established in Idaho that an action for divorce is addressed to the equity…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Compton v. ComptonIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Rudd v. RuddIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Hiltbrand v. HiltbrandIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Mercer v. MercerIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Perovitz v. PerovitzIdaho Supreme Court · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API