Moix v. Moix
Supreme Court of Arkansas
430 S.W.3d 680, 2013 Ark. 478 (2013)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Libby Moix (plaintiff) and John Moix (defendant) were divorced in 2004. The Moixes’ incorporated property-settlement agreement provided that Libby and John would share joint custody of their three sons, with Libby serving as the primary custodian and John having reasonable visitation rights. The settlement agreement also stated that neither Libby nor John was to have overnight guests. Libby filed a petition to modify John’s visitation upon learning that he had a romantic relationship with a live-in male companion, Chad Cornelius, whom the children had been in contact with on multiple occasions. Libby and John agreed that Libby would assume full custody of the youngest child, R.M., but otherwise left the current custody arrangement in place. Additionally, Libby and John agreed that John’s visitation with R.M. would be restricted to every other weekend and every Wednesday, without overnight visitation. Despite the agreed-upon order, R.M. enjoyed liberal overnight visitation with John. Based on Libby’s marriage to another man, John filed a motion to modify visitation to allow overnight visits. Despite testimony that John and Chad were committed to each other and had never engaged in any romantic behavior around R.M., the trial court granted John’s motion but prevented Chad from being present during any overnight visits. John appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hoofman, J.)
Dissent (Goodson, J.)
Dissent (Baker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
