Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Angela O'Connell was involved in a theft scheme whereby Appellant's husband would steal property from a local business and sell the stolen goods for cash. Appellant pled guilty to accountability for theft pursuant to a plea agreement. Upon sentencing, Appellant was prohibited from entering bars and casinos and consuming alcohol, and was ordered to pay restitution to the business she stole from in the amount of $159,606. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) because the district court's determination of lost profits in this matter was based upon speculation and not supported by substantial evidence, the district court erred by ordering payment of lost profits, in addition to the replacement value of the stolen property, as part of Appellant's restitution obligation, and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Appellant from entering bars as a condition of her sentence because the restriction furthered Appellant's rehabilitation. Remanded for recalculation of restitution based upon the replacement value of the stolen property.

Sellers entered an alleged contract with Buyer for the sale of property. After the parties failed to complete the sale, Buyer sued Sellers, seeking specific performance of the alleged contract. Buyer filed an amended complaint that added as a defendant Attorney, who had served as counsel for Sellers in the failed transaction, alleging fraud and other tortious conduct. Attorney filed a motion to substitute the district court judge, which the district court denied after finding Attorney's motion was untimely. At issue on appeal was whether Attorney qualified as a third-party defendant who possessed an independent right of substitution as opposed to a subsequently joined defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Attorney and Buyer qualified as adverse parties, and therefore, Attorney was a third-party defendant; and (2) Attorney timely filed his motion of substitution. Remanded.

Before their divorce, Scott Weiss borrowed $280,000 from Rayna Weiss for an ownership interest in a brokerage service. Upon dissolution of the marriage, the district court determined the loan from Rayna was interest-free. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the loan required the payment of interest at the rate of ten percent a year and remanded to the district court for calculation of interest from the time Rayna transferred the funds to Scott until the amount was paid in full. Upon remand, the district court concluded that Scott owed Rayna $49,954 in interest on the loan with postjudgment interest accruing at the rate of ten percent per annum until paid. Rayna appealed the district court's determination that the principal of the loan was paid back in full and the court's subsequent calculation of interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly determined that the loan was paid off in full by Scott, and (2) district court's subsequent calculation of simple interest on the loan was correct.

Robert Riggs was convicted by a jury of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and two counts of sexual assault. Riggs filed an amended petition for postconviction relief, alleging approximately eighty claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court partially denied Riggs' petition, finding many of the claims were barred for various reasons. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Riggs' remaining twelve claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel was not ineffective in his pretrial work, and counsel did not make the errors alleged by Riggs during trial. Because the Court found no ineffective assistance of counsel on Riggs' individual claims, the Court found there was no cumulative error.

Frederick and Mandelena Harmon bought a home pursuant to a buy-sell agreement that realtor Dianne Burright, a licensed real estate salesperson who worked for Fiscus Realty, prepared at the Fiscus Realty office. The home was built by Dianne's husband, Jerry. The Harmons subsequently discovered numerous construction problems. The Harmons sued Defendants Jerry and Dianne Burright and Fiscus Reality, raising several causing of action, including a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). A jury returned a verdict against the Burrights on breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation claims and held for Defendants on all other claims. After trial, Defendants filed motions for attorney fees as prevailing parties under the Act, which the district court denied. Fiscus Realty appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an award of attorney fees to Fiscus Realty as the Harmons' claims had a basis in fact and law and were not frivolous, unreasonable or unfounded.

John Miller pled guilty to two counts of deliberate homicide. Miller later filed suit against James Goetz, the attorney that defended him, and arranged for Patrick Begley's limited representation in his claims against Goetz. Begley later withdrew from representing Miller. Miller then filed suit against Begley, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent deceit. The district court granted summary judgment to Begley, finding that Begley had reasonably assisted Miller with his claims against Goetz and the dismissal of the Goetz claim was based on legal deficiencies unrelated to Begley's legal services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Begley as Miller failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his claims.

Jule Roundstone was convicted of assault with a weapon and sentenced to a five-year commitment to the department of corrections (DOC). Roundstone's request for a furlough was granted, and he was released for a ten-day period. Roundstone failed to report after the first day of his furlough and was apprehended about a month later. Roundstone was charged with felony escape pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-7-306. The district court denied Roundstone's motion to dismiss the charge as to the allegation that Roundstone had removed himself from official detention while on furlough and, therefore, could not commit escape. Roundstone entered a plea of guilty to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. Roundstone was sentenced to ten years at the DOC, with five years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roundstone's motion to dismiss as Roundstone was not excluded from official detention while on furlough, and (2) the prosecution did not violate Roundstone's due process rights by making certain sentencing recommendations during the sentencing hearing.

Dane Shattuck died from injuries after being hit by an automobile. Dane received medical care at Hospital for his injuries. Dane was enrolled in a children's health insurance program (CHIP), administered by the department of public health and human services (DPHHS). Hospital submitted the bill for Dane's care to Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS), which served as third-party administrator of the CHIP program for DPHHS. Hospital then asserted a lien for the full bill amount against recoveries Gail Shattuck, as personal representative of Dane's estate, may obtain against third parties. Shattuck sued Hospital, BCBS, DPHHS, and the State, asserting that Defendants unlawfully acted to avoid application of "made whole" rules and that Hospital could not foreclose the lien because Shattuck had not been made whole. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Shattuck. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred by determining that CHIP constitutes insurance and was governed by the made whole doctrine, and (2) the district court did not err by determining that BCBS was not an insurer in its role here and, therefore, was not subject to the made whole statute. Remanded.

Rohnn Lampi's neighbor admitted liability for negligently dumping ashes that caused a wildfire that burned the trees and vegetation on Lampi's property. After the parties failed to agree on a settlement amount, Lampi brought an action in district court against his neighbor and sought a jury trial to determine damages. The jury awarded Lampi $250,000. On appeal, Lampi contended that the district court wrongly denied his motions to establish restoration damages as the appropriate measure of damages in his case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by not concluding that restoration damages constituted the appropriate measure of damages in this case. Remanded for a new trial to allow the jury to determine what reasonable amount of damages would restore Lampi's property to its pre-fire condition.

Scott Heddings was charged with felony incest in State court. While the incest charge was pending, Heddings was charged in federal court with receipt of child pornography, possession of child pornography, and destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure. Heddings pled guilty to federal court to these charges. Heddings then pled guilty to the incest charge in State court. Heddings subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing (1) he was subjected to double jeopardy because he was sentenced in State court for conduct that was used to enhance his federal sentence, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not challenge the State court charge on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the petition, concluding that because the federal and State charges were based on separate conduct, Heddings' double jeopardy claim had no legal merit and, therefore, it would have been frivolous for his counsel to raise that claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the failure of Heddings' trial counsel to move for the dismissal of the State incest charge on double jeopardy grounds did not constitute ineffective assistance since the motion lacked merit and would not have changed the outcome of the proceedings.