In Re the Marriage of Cini, 266 P.3d 1257

Nigel and Robin were married for eight years and entered a PSA in July 2009 detailing asset transfers and a $250,000 promissory note from Nigel to Robin with monthly payments and a balloon payoff.
Robin sought financial documentation and claimed PSA noncompliance, creditors and employee concerns arose, and Robin sought enforcement and contempt remedies.
January 2010: parties stipulated that Robin would manage the businesses; the court incorporated the PSA in a Decree of Dissolution; Nigel proceeded pro se after counsel withdrawal.
Nigel allegedly continued noncompliance, Robin obtained ex parte relief in January 2010 granting control to Robin and requiring Nigel to provide access to accounts and return assets; Nigel sent mail to himself, diverted funds, and hindered access.
Robin later filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy; the district court issued findings of contempt in October 2010, awarding Robin sole possession of Kangaroo Brew, receiver fees, and attorney’s fees; Nigel appealed, with bankruptcy stay litigation and eventual appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dispute must be arbitrated	Nigel argues arbitration controls.	Robin argues PSA enforcement, not Operating Agreement arbitration.	No error; court correctly refused arbitration.
Whether Nigel was properly held in contempt	Nigel contends no contempt necessary or findings insufficient.	Robin argues nine PSA violations established contempt.	Contempt supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the trial judge should have been removed for bias	Nigel asserts judicial bias necessitates removal.	Robin argues no bias; judge was patient and fair.	No bias; removal not warranted.
Whether Nigel received due process	Nigel alleges due process violations.	Robin contends Nigel was on notice and testified; process adequate.	Due process satisfied; issues not properly preserved.
Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded	Nigel contends fees were excessive or improper.	PSA allowed fee-shifting to the prevailing party.	Attorneys’ fees correctly awarded under PSA.

Gordon v. Kuzara, 358 Mont. 432 (Mont. 2010) (arbitration standard reviewed de novo)
Hart v. Hart, 360 Mont. 308 (Mont. 2011) (attorney’s fees provisions enforceable if clear)
In re Marriage of Sullivan, 258 Mont. 531 (Mont. 1994) (standard for reviewing family law contempt orders)
In re Marriage of Gorton, 342 Mont. 537 (Mont. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for fees)
In re Marriage of Stevens, 360 Mont. 494 (Mont. 2011) (contempt review where ownership interests affected)
In re Mental Health of T.J.F., 359 Mont. 213 (Mont. 2011) (constitutional questions subjected to plenary review)
State v. Payne, 359 Mont. 270 (Mont. 2011) (preservation of issues for appellate review)