Montana limits full-balance judgment in post-divorce student-loan dispute

The Montana Supreme Court vacated an immediately collectible judgment for the full balance of a student loan in a post-divorce enforcement dispute. In In re Marriage of Kearns, the court affirmed the contempt finding for missed monthly payments and an attorney-fee award, but concluded that the parties’ agreements did not authorize accelerating the entire balance as the district court had ordered.

The parties’ marital and property settlement agreement assigned the former husband responsibility for a Parent PLUS loan and required him to indemnify and hold the former wife harmless. She remained the named borrower. After an earlier enforcement dispute, a 2022 stipulation required him to make monthly payments and addressed access to the loan account and the consequences of nonpayment.

The district court later held him in contempt for nonpayment, denied his request for additional account access, entered a judgment for the full unpaid balance, and awarded the former wife $3,237.50 in attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the account-access ruling without diminishing existing rights to statements and payment information. It also affirmed contempt based on the August and September 2024 nonpayments.

The court treated the full-balance judgment as a separate remedy question. It concluded that the agreement and later stipulation did not authorize the immediate acceleration ordered by the district court for the missed monthly payments. It vacated both the directive for the full-balance judgment and the later judgment, and remanded for determination of an enforcement remedy consistent with the opinion. The decision did not erase the continuing debt obligation or the contempt determination.

The court affirmed the existing $3,237.50 fee award and remanded for determination of reasonable appellate fees attributable to enforcing the monthly-payment obligation, accounting for the parties’ mixed results. It denied the former wife’s request for appellate sanctions. The ruling turns on the parties’ agreement, stipulation and procedural history; it does not announce that full-balance remedies are unavailable under every agreement.