MARRIAGE OF SLIWINSKI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 03-832 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 157N IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LEAH MICHELLE SLIWINSKI, Petitioner and Respondent, and THOMAS SLIWINSKI, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADR 2002-435 Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Thomas Sliwinski, Pro Se, Cascade, Montana For Respondent: Amy Hall, Montana Legal Services Association, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 28, 2004 Decided: June 22, 2004 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Thomas Sliwinski (Tom), appearing pro se, appeals from the Decree of Dissolution entered by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. We affirm. ¶3 Tom asserts the District Court improperly failed to recuse itself voluntarily or upon counsel s motion after signing a warrant for his arrest in a separate case the day before the dissolution hearing, failed to allow him to represent himself, failed to hold a hearing on his objection to the Decree, and failed to set bail on a criminal case assigned to a different court. ¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions. On the face of the briefs and the record before us on appeal, it is manifest that the appeal is without merit because the District Court correctly interpreted legal issues clearly controlled by settled Montana law, its challenged discretionary rulings at issue on appeal clearly did not constitute an abuse of discretion, nothing in the record supports Tom s assertion that the District Court required him to retain counsel, and the bail issue is not properly before us in this appeal. ¶5 Affirmed. /S/ KARLA M. GRAY 2 We concur: /S/ JIM RICE /S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
