Marriage of Ferrazzano

• The Montana Supreme Court has a docket entry for a case titled *In re the Marriage of Ferrazzano* dated August 4, 2026.
• The case involves Joshua Ferrazzano, listed as Petitioner and Appellee, and Kelly O’Connell (f/k/a Original document).
• The appellate case is identified by case number DA 25-0549 and citation 2026 MT 182N.
• Joshua Ferrazzano's dual designation suggests he initiated the original action and is now responding to an appeal.
• Without the full opinion, the specific legal issues or the court's reasoning in this Montana family law case are not publicly known.

Without the full opinion, it is not possible to determine the specific legal issues addressed or the practical implications for lawyers or compliance officers.

A recent docket entry from the Supreme Court of the State of Montana indicates an appellate review concerning a family law matter, specifically identified as *In re the Marriage of Ferrazzano*. The case, bearing the official citation 2026 MT 182N and the case number DA 25-0549, was noted on August 4, 2026. This entry signifies that the Montana Supreme Court has taken up an appeal related to a marital dissolution proceeding, a common type of Montana family law case.

The parties involved in this appellate action are Joshua Ferrazzano, who is designated as both the Petitioner and Appellee, and Kelly O’Connell, whose full former name is incompletely listed as "f/k/a Original document" in the available record. The dual designation of Joshua Ferrazzano as "Petitioner and Appellee" suggests he was the initiating party in the original lower court proceeding (the petitioner) and is now the party responding to an appeal filed by the other side (the appellee). This implies that Kelly O'Connell, or the party whose name is incomplete, is the appellant in this specific appeal before the Montana Supreme Court.

The appearance of a case like *In re Marriage of Ferrazzano* on the Montana Supreme Court's docket means that a decision from a lower court in a divorce or marital dissolution case involving Joshua Ferrazzano and Kelly O'Connell has been challenged. In Montana's legal system, the Supreme Court serves as the highest judicial body, primarily reviewing decisions made by district courts to ensure legal errors have not occurred. The court's role is not to retry the case but to examine the application of law and procedure.

The case number, DA 25-0549, is a unique identifier for this specific appeal within the Montana Supreme Court's system, while the citation 2026 MT 182N provides a standardized way to reference the court's eventual decision, indicating the year (2026), the court (MT for Montana Supreme Court), and the sequential number of the opinion. The presence of the 'N' in the citation 2026 MT 182N typically denotes that the opinion is noncitable as precedent, meaning it applies only to the parties involved and does not establish new law for future cases. However, without the full text of the opinion, the specific reasons for this designation remain unknown.

While the docket entry confirms the existence of this appellate review by the Montana Supreme Court, the limited information available means that the specific legal issues at stake in the *Joshua Ferrazzano Kelly O'Connell divorce* are not yet public. Family law appeals often involve disputes over property division, spousal support, child custody, or other complex matters arising from the dissolution of a marriage. The court's eventual opinion would detail the facts, the arguments presented by both sides, and the legal reasoning behind its decision.

Without the full opinion, it is not possible to determine the specific legal issues addressed or the practical implications for lawyers or compliance officers. The outcome of this particular appeal, including whether the lower court's decision was affirmed, reversed, or remanded, and the impact on Joshua Ferrazzano and Kelly O'Connell, remains undisclosed. The case serves as a reminder that even routine family law matters can escalate to the highest court for review, underscoring the complexities inherent in such proceedings.

The provided text is a case caption from the Montana Supreme Court. Without the full opinion, it is not possible to determine the specific legal issues addressed or the practical implications for lawyers or compliance officers.

Source: Original reporting via Montana Supreme Court docket entry