Attorney Gregory John Quimby's Legal Cases

Appeals

In Re the Marriage of Smith, Colorado Appellate Court

Apr 23, 2015

OUTCOME: Orders Affirmed in part, Reversed in Part, Vacated in Part, and Case Remanded with Directions to the District Court

The district court’s award of attorney fees and costs is vacated, the district court’s order reversing the magistrate’s contempt order as to the marital home issue is reversed, and the case is remanded ... with directions that the district court (1) reinstate the magistrate’s contempt finding and $8620 sanctions; (2) reconsider the magistrate’s award of attorney fees under C.R.M. 7; and (3) consider entitlement to appellate attorney fees pursuant to C.R.C.P. 107(d)(2) and section 14-10-119.

Appeals

In Re the Marriage of Russell, Court of Appeals, Colorado

Mar 26, 2015

OUTCOME: The $315 judgment was vacated. The C.R.C.P. 60(b) order setting aside the $7,000 judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for the court to reconsider the Rule 60(b) motion and to consider request for appellate attorney fees.

Judgment vacated, order reversed, and case remanded with directions

Appeals

In re the Marriage of Chevalier, Colorado Court of Appeals

Sep 10, 2009

OUTCOME: The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statutory endangerment standard had not been met.

Order affirmed for child custody because endangerment was not proved when trying to flip-flop parenting time. Upon a request for modification that changes the parent with whom the child resides a majo ... rity of the time the court must retain the parenting time schedule from the prior decree, unless...(4) it finds the child would be endangered.

Child custody

In the Interest of F.A.G., a Child, 148 P.3d 375 (Colo.App. Div. 5 2006)

Jan 01, 2006

OUTCOME: The order is vacated. The case is remanded to the trial court to hold a hearing on this matter and to decide father's motion on its merits.

Father contends the trial court erred in concluding that his motion to modify parenting time was time barred. He argues that § 14-10-131 does not apply to motions for modification of parenting time. He ... also submits that § 14-10-129(1.5) does not apply to his motion because its two-year prohibition on motions for modification of parenting time applies only: (1) when a party's request would change the person who has a majority of parenting time; and (2) if a second motion to change parenting time is filed within two years after a previous one. We agree that § 14-10-131(1) does not apply to a motion for modification of parenting time. We agree also, absent a previous motion of the type described in § 14-10-129(1.5), that father's motion was not subject to the two-year rule set forth in that subsection. Thus, his motion should have been considered by the trial court.

Gregory John Quimby's Legal Cases (4)

In Re the Marriage of Smith, Colorado Appellate Court

In Re the Marriage of Russell, Court of Appeals, Colorado

In re the Marriage of Chevalier, Colorado Court of Appeals

In the Interest of F.A.G., a Child, 148 P.3d 375 (Colo.App. Div. 5 2006)