Pikula v. Pikula
Minnesota Supreme Court
374 N.W.2d 705 (1985)
- Written by Brittany Frankel, JD
Facts
On March 29, 1980, Kelly Jo Pikula (plaintiff) and Dana David Pikula (defendant) were married. The Pikulas’ first daughter, Tiffany, was eight months old at the time of the Pikulas’ marriage. Shortly after, the Pikulas moved to Dana’s hometown, where they had frequent contact with Dana’s close-knit family. In 1981, Kelly had the couple’s second daughter, Tanisha. Kelly’s role was to care for the children and manage the home. Dana worked a split shift outside the home for his father’s trucking company. Kelly had a quick temper, and Dana suffered from chemical dependency, which led the couple to separate. While the Pikulas were awaiting a trial on their divorce, the Pikulas agreed to a joint-custody arrangement. Three professional social workers prepared reports for the trial judge, and all three recommended that custody be awarded to Kelly, with Dana having reasonable visitation with the children. However, the trial court found that Dana’s extended family was a strong, stable, and religious group, and that Kelly’s family was the opposite. Thus, the trial judge awarded custody to Dana. The court of appeals reversed the trial court and held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Dana custody. Dana appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wahl, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.
