Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Loren Dean Raver was pulled over while driving a stolen Ford F-150 and subsequently arrested. The truck's owner, Stacie Grandpre, confirmed that she did not know Raver and had not given him permission to drive her truck. Upon searching the vehicle, deputies found syringes, a spoon with a crystalline substance, and stolen copper wire and tools. Raver was charged with multiple counts, including felony theft and misdemeanors. He entered a no contest plea for felony theft and misdemeanor theft of the copper wire, and the other charges were dropped.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, held a sentencing hearing where the State requested $17,470.36 in restitution for Grandpre's losses, including vehicle damage, hunting gear, car rentals, and cleaning costs. The State presented testimony from a State Farm Insurance claims specialist, who attributed the damages to the theft based on Grandpre's statements and the investigation. Raver, a mechanic, contested the amount, claiming the truck had no issues during his possession and proposed a lower restitution amount.The District Court ordered the full restitution amount, finding a reasonable connection between the damage and Raver's theft. The court found the State's evidence credible and Raver's testimony not credible. Raver appealed, arguing insufficient causation and challenging the inclusion of the bumper replacement cost.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court found that the evidence presented, including the State Farm investigation and Grandpre's statements, supported the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also rejected Raver's argument regarding the bumper, as there was insufficient evidence to refute the State Farm conclusion. View "State v. Raver" on Justia Law

Charlie’s Win, LLC, a property owner within the Gallatin West Ranch Subdivision, filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that the restrictive covenants governing the subdivision had expired. The original Declaration of Protective Covenants, recorded in 1992, stated that the covenants would be in effect for 25 years and could be extended by a two-thirds majority vote of the owners. In 2015, Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners’ Association attempted to adopt a Fourth Amended Declaration, which included changes such as allowing metal roofs and backyard chicken coops. Of the 24 owners, 15 voted in favor, one voted against, and eight abstained.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, granted summary judgment in favor of Charlie’s Win, concluding that the covenants had expired on October 22, 2017, as the Fourth Amended Declaration did not receive the required two-thirds majority vote of all owners. Gallatin West appealed, arguing that the 2015 vote either properly adopted the Fourth Amended Declaration, modified the covenants, or that the covenants were ambiguous and required an analysis of the parties' conduct.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Court held that the plain language of the covenants required a two-thirds majority vote of all owners to extend the covenants, which was not achieved in the 2015 vote. The Court rejected Gallatin West’s arguments, stating that the renewal and modification clauses had different voting standards and that the covenants were not ambiguous. Consequently, the Third Amended Declaration expired by its own terms, and Gallatin West could not enforce the Fourth Amended Declaration against Charlie’s Win. View "Charlie's Win, LLC v. Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners' Association" on Justia Law

Thomas Joseph Brennan was charged with four counts of felony sexual assault and one count of felony sexual abuse of children. His 14-year-old stepdaughter, A.H., disclosed that Brennan habitually entered her bedroom to watch her change clothes and touched her inappropriately. A.H. testified that Brennan's behavior became intrusive and invasive, including "snuggling" with her in bed and touching her inappropriately. A.H.'s grandmother and mother provided corroborating testimony. Brennan denied the allegations but admitted to some of the physical contact described by A.H.The jury found Brennan not guilty of the four counts of sexual assault but guilty of the one count of sexual abuse of children. Brennan moved for a new trial, arguing that the conduct established at trial did not constitute sexual abuse of children under the relevant statute. The District Court agreed, finding insufficient evidence to uphold the jury's verdict and granted Brennan's motion for a new trial, dismissing the conviction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The court held that Brennan's conduct of watching A.H. change clothes constituted a "lewd exhibition" and a "depiction" of a child in a state of partial undress for the purpose of his own sexual gratification or to humiliate A.H. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and instructed the District Court to reinstate Brennan's conviction for sexual abuse of children. View "State v. Brennan" on Justia Law

David L. Murphy Properties, LLC and John Schaffer own property adjacent to Painted Rocks Cliff, LLC on Flathead Lake. Painted Rocks constructed a dock after obtaining a permit from Lake County. Murphy Properties claimed the dock violated the Lakeshore Protection Act, interfered with their prescriptive easement, and constituted a nuisance.The Twentieth Judicial District Court dismissed Murphy Properties' Lakeshore Protection Act claim against Lake County and granted summary judgment in favor of Painted Rocks on all claims. The court found that the dock did not interfere with navigation or lawful recreation under the Act, as Murphy Properties could still access the cove with smaller watercraft. The court also ruled that Murphy Properties could not establish a prescriptive easement because their use of the cove was not exclusive, given the public's right to use the waters. Additionally, the court dismissed the nuisance claim, as it was contingent on the alleged violation of the Lakeshore Protection Act.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's rulings. The court held that the Lakeshore Protection Act does not mandate denial of a permit if a project impacts navigation or recreation, but rather favors issuance if it does not. The court agreed that Murphy Properties' use of the cove was not exclusive and thus could not support a prescriptive easement. The court also upheld the dismissal of the nuisance claim, as it was based on the failed Lakeshore Protection Act claim. The judgment in favor of Lake County and Painted Rocks was affirmed. View "David L. Murphy Properties, LLC v. Painted Rocks Cliff, LLC" on Justia Law

Christopher J. Lamm and Amanda R. Kinney Anderson are the parents of F.L.F.L.K. Christopher lives in Williston, North Dakota, and Amanda lives in Bainville, Montana. They were not married, and after the birth of their child, Christopher filed a Petition for Parenting Plan in the District Court on March 1, 2023. The court held a hearing on May 23, 2023, where both parties, representing themselves, participated in an informal manner. The court established an interim parenting plan, allowing Christopher supervised visits with the goal of gradually increasing his parenting time.The District Court issued an order on January 22, 2024, setting a hearing for a final parenting plan under the new Informal Domestic Relations Trial (IDRT) process, which came into effect on October 1, 2023. The court held the hearing on February 5, 2024, where it questioned both parties about their lives and their ability to care for the child. The court issued its final parenting plan on February 7, 2024, designating Amanda as the primary custodian and gradually increasing Christopher's parenting time, with the goal of transitioning to overnight visits once the child turned two.Christopher appealed, arguing that the District Court failed to fully inform him of the IDRT process and did not consider the best interests of the child statutes. The Montana Supreme Court found that while the District Court did not fully explain the IDRT process, Christopher did not object and fully participated in the hearing. The court also found no substantial prejudice to Christopher from the IDRT process. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the manner the IDRT was conducted or in the formulation of the final parenting plan. View "In re Parenting of F.L.F.L.K." on Justia Law

Kevin Charles Walla was charged with Deliberate Homicide after shooting and killing Richard Allen Bowers in his apartment on December 31, 2019. Walla claimed he acted in self-defense, citing Bowers' history of drug use, criminal behavior, and aggression. The State sought to exclude Walla's testimony about Bowers' character. During the trial, the parties reached an agreement on certain evidentiary disputes and jury instructions, including a provision allowing Walla's counsel to make an offer of proof about Walla's testimony outside the jury's presence. However, Walla ultimately decided not to testify.The Sixth Judicial District Court, Sweet Grass County, presided over the trial. Walla's counsel agreed to strike the provision regarding the offer of proof after Walla decided not to testify. Walla also proposed a supplemental verdict form to ensure the jury's unanimous decision on his self-defense claim, which the court rejected, stating that the standard verdict form and jury instructions were sufficient. The jury found Walla guilty of Deliberate Homicide, and he was sentenced to 100 years in prison, with an additional 10-year Weapons Enhancement.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not improperly reject the procedural agreement's provision, as Walla's decision not to testify rendered the issue moot. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in rejecting the supplemental verdict form, as the jury instructions clearly required a unanimous verdict and adequately informed the jury of the State's burden to prove Walla's actions were not justified. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment and sentence. View "State v. Walla" on Justia Law

Warren Dan Eddleman passed away on August 5, 2022, leaving a will that named Tom Wagoner as the personal representative (PR) and John Pinkerton as the sole devisee. Several creditors, including Eddleman's ex-wife Sandra, daughter Madelyn, sister Jobey, the Eddleman Oar Lock Ranch, LLC, and the Madelyn Lue Eddleman Trust, filed claims against the estate. The PR disallowed some claims and allowed others in part. The PR and the claimants agreed to a first extension of time for the claimants to respond to the disallowances, extending the deadline to June 23, 2023. As the deadline approached, the PR's counsel assured the claimants that he would not seek to bar their claims if a second extension was not granted by the deadline.The District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District initially granted the second extension but later rescinded it upon John Pinkerton's motion to reconsider, effectively barring the pending creditors' claims. The claimants appealed, arguing that the PR had the authority to extend the timeframe without the devisee's consent, that the devisee's consent had been obtained in a prior memorandum of understanding, and that the estate was estopped from asserting the claims were time-barred based on the PR's counsel's representations.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and concluded that the PR lacked the authority to unilaterally extend the timeframe for the claimants to respond to the disallowances without the consent of the sole devisee, John Pinkerton. However, the court also found that the estate was equitably estopped from raising a claim processing time-bar defense due to the PR's counsel's assurances to the claimants. The court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the claimants' petitions for allowance to be considered as timely filed. View "In re Estate of Eddleman" on Justia Law

Bill B. Bokma, the petitioner, was arrested in December 2020 for felony driving under the influence of alcohol. He was released on the condition that he abstain from alcohol, which he failed to do, leading to another arrest. Bokma entered into a plea agreement with the State, which included alternative sentences contingent upon his acceptance into the Eighth Judicial District Adult Drug Treatment Court Program (ADTC). He pleaded guilty and was accepted into ADTC. However, Bokma violated the treatment court’s conditions, leading to a report of violation and a request for his termination from ADTC.The District Court initially dismissed the State’s petition to terminate Bokma from ADTC after he began engaging in the treatment program. However, due to repeated violations, the State again sought to terminate his participation in November 2022. Bokma stipulated that he was unable to complete ADTC, and the District Court revoked his suspended sentence, committing him to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for a three-year term with credit for twenty-seven days of jail time and eight days of elapsed time.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed Bokma’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, requesting additional credit for jail time and elapsed time. The court determined that Bokma was entitled to an additional twenty-two days of jail time credit, bringing the total to forty-nine days. The court also addressed the issue of whether the Montana Incentives and Interventions Grid (MIIG) should have been applied to Bokma’s revocation. The court concluded that although the District Court erred in classifying Bokma’s failure to complete ADTC as a non-compliance violation, the revocation was proper due to his repeated violations and failure to complete the treatment program.The Supreme Court granted Bokma’s petition in part, remanding the case to the District Court to amend its order to include the additional jail time credit. The court denied Bokma’s other claims and closed the matter. View "Bokma v. Olsen" on Justia Law

The case involves Protect the Gallatin River (PTGR) appealing a decision by the Gallatin County Floodplain Administrator to issue a floodplain permit for the Riverbend Glamping Getaway project proposed by Jeff and Jirina Pfeil. The project includes developing a campground with non-permanent structures on an island in the Gallatin River. PTGR argued that the public's right to participate was violated and that the Floodplain Administrator's decision was erroneous.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court of Gallatin County reviewed the case and issued an order on November 13, 2023, resolving competing summary judgment motions. The court denied PTGR's motions for partial summary judgment, granted summary judgment in favor of Gallatin County and the Pfeils regarding PTGR's complaint, and addressed other related claims. PTGR then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Floodplain Administrator did not violate PTGR's right to participate, as the public was given a reasonable opportunity to comment, and the decision not to re-open public comment was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also found that the Floodplain Administrator's participation in the appeal process before the Commission was appropriate and lawful, as it did not involve post hoc rationalizations. Finally, the court held that the Floodplain Administrator's decision complied with the Gallatin County Floodplain Regulations and was not an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment orders. View "Protect the Gallatin v. Gallatin Co." on Justia Law

Katelyn Hove was hospitalized in 2018 for pregnancy complications, and the Billings Clinic billed Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Montana for her services. BCBS of Montana indicated that BCBS of Texas was her insurance provider. BCBS of Texas paid part of the bill, leaving a balance that Hove did not pay. The clinic assigned the unpaid debt to CB1, a debt-collection agency, which then sued the Hoves for breach of contract, breach of obligation, and unjust enrichment. The Hoves named BCBS of Montana as a third-party defendant. CB1 moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits from the clinic. Hove responded with a written declaration disputing the charges, including an EOB from BCBS of Texas and an email from the Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, granted summary judgment in favor of CB1, reasoning that Hove's declaration and attached EOB were unverified and inadmissible. The court entered a final monetary judgment against the Hoves. The Hoves filed a motion to amend the judgment, attaching a sworn affidavit with the same information as the declaration. The District Court denied the motion, stating that the declaration and its attachments were inadmissible hearsay and that the declaration did not meet the statutory criteria under § 1-6-105, MCA.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and found that a declaration under § 1-6-105, MCA, is equivalent to an affidavit. The court determined that Hove's declaration, which stated she never spent time in the ICU despite being billed for it, raised a genuine issue of material fact. The court reversed the District Court's summary judgment and remanded the case for trial on the merits. View "CB1 v. Hove" on Justia Law