Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dennis Schaub and Louise Schaub were married in 1980, divorced in 2010, and reunited in 2014, establishing a common law marriage. They separated again in 2017, and Louise filed for dissolution in 2018. During their first divorce, they had a property settlement agreement that heavily favored Dennis. After their second separation, the District Court awarded Dennis most of the marital assets, citing the short reconciliation period and Louise's lack of contribution to the marital estate.The Twelfth Judicial District Court initially awarded Dennis his bank accounts, real property, vehicles, and other personal property, while Louise received only her personal items. Louise appealed, and the Montana Supreme Court remanded the case, instructing the District Court to reconsider the equitable distribution of the marital estate, taking into account the factors in § 40-4-202, MCA, and the couple's long marital history.On remand, the District Court held a hearing and found that Dennis's estate was valued at $569,341.08, while Louise's was valued at $0. The court ordered Dennis to make equalization payments to Louise totaling $242,400 over fifteen years to achieve a more equitable distribution of the marital estate, with Dennis receiving 58% and Louise 42%. The court did not require Dennis to pay interest on these payments.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision to award equalization payments, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision not to include interest on the payments, citing § 25-9-205, MCA, which mandates interest on judgments. The case was remanded to the District Court to amend the decree to include interest and correct a scrivener's error in the payment schedule. View "In re Marriage of Schaub" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to two Montana laws, HB 544 and HB 862, and a rule adopted by the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) regarding Medicaid funding for abortions. The plaintiffs, including Planned Parenthood of Montana and other healthcare providers, argue that these provisions infringe on the constitutional rights of their patients by imposing restrictions on Medicaid coverage for abortions. Specifically, the laws and rule bar Medicaid from covering abortions provided by non-physicians, require prior authorization for abortion services, and limit Medicaid coverage to abortions deemed "medically necessary" under a restrictive definition.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County issued a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of HB 544, HB 862, and the DPHHS rule. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, which included violations of the right to privacy and equal protection under the Montana Constitution. The court applied strict scrutiny, determining that the laws and rule were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, as the challenged provisions infringed on the fundamental right to privacy and equal protection. The court held that the state failed to demonstrate that the laws and rule were narrowly tailored to address a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk. The Supreme Court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest supported maintaining the injunction. View "Planned Parenthood v. State" on Justia Law

J.F.R., an 80-year-old individual diagnosed with cognitive impairments and dementia, lives with her daughter Stephanie in Montana. A dispute arose between Stephanie and J.F.R.'s other daughter, Jana, regarding J.F.R.'s care and financial management. Jana filed a petition for the appointment of both daughters as co-guardians and co-conservators, while J.F.R. supported Stephanie's appointment as sole guardian and conservator. The District Court initially appointed both daughters as temporary co-guardians and co-conservators but later vacated this order, directing the parties to proceed with discovery.The District Court of the Third Judicial District, Granite County, held a hearing and found substantial evidence of financial mismanagement and communication issues between the daughters. The court noted that J.F.R.'s assets were being depleted rapidly and that her current advisors were insufficient to protect her financial interests. Consequently, the court appointed the Western Montana Chapter for Prevention of Elder Abuse (Western) as J.F.R.'s temporary conservator and Western, Stephanie, and Jana as temporary co-guardians.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the District Court did not err in determining that J.F.R.'s welfare required immediate action, justifying the appointment of a temporary guardian and conservator. The court also found no abuse of discretion in appointing Western, despite the statutory order of priority, as the circumstances warranted a neutral third party. Additionally, the court ruled that Western's dual role as co-guardian and conservator did not violate statutory provisions, and the appointment of a neuropsychologist for evaluation was appropriate under the circumstances. View "In re J.F.R." on Justia Law

Benedict Dale Fredericks was involved in an altercation in the parking lot of the Bourbon Street Hotel in Billings, Montana, on January 25, 2022. Hotel clerk Marion Ackerman confronted Fredericks, suspecting him of trying to enter a car that did not belong to him. After a verbal exchange, Fredericks shoved Marion, who shoved him back. During the ensuing scuffle, Fredericks stabbed Marion three times. Marion's brother, Trevor, restrained Fredericks until law enforcement arrived. Fredericks was charged with Felony Assault with a Weapon and claimed he acted in self-defense.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, presided over the case. During the trial, the defense requested a jury instruction on justifiable use of force, which the court denied, stating there was insufficient evidence to support this defense. The jury subsequently convicted Fredericks of Felony Assault with a Weapon, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The main issue on appeal was whether the District Court abused its discretion by not instructing the jury on justifiable use of force. The Supreme Court found that although the District Court erred in its reasoning for denying the instruction, the refusal was ultimately correct. The evidence showed that Fredericks initiated the physical altercation and had opportunities to escape but chose to escalate the situation by using a knife. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding that the justifiable use of force instruction was not warranted based on the evidence presented. View "State v. Fredericks" on Justia Law

Christian Michael Smith was involved in a motorcycle accident on September 2, 2023, in Cascade County, Montana. Montana State Trooper Perry Woodland responded to the scene and found Smith injured and already being attended to by paramedics. Smith admitted to drinking the previous evening but could not perform a field sobriety test due to his injuries. Woodland followed Smith to the hospital, where Smith initially consented to a blood test but later refused after consulting with his mother. Consequently, Smith's driver's license was suspended under Montana's implied consent statute.Smith petitioned the Eighth Judicial District Court to reinstate his license, arguing that Trooper Woodland lacked particularized suspicion to request the blood test and that he did not refuse the test. The State contended that Woodland had probable cause to believe Smith was involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury, justifying the request for a blood test. The District Court found that while Woodland did not have particularized suspicion of DUI, he had probable cause to believe the accident resulted in serious bodily injury, thus upholding the request for the blood test. The court also found that Smith refused the test when he said, "I don’t want that," after speaking with his mother.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that Woodland had probable cause to believe Smith's injuries were serious, as defined by Montana law, and that Smith's statement constituted a refusal to submit to the blood test. The Court also declined to consider Smith's argument that he was incapable of refusing the test due to pain medication, as this argument was raised for the first time on appeal. The suspension of Smith's driver's license was upheld. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Lena Johnson and her daughter, Katherine Grundhauser, died in a car accident in 2006. They co-owned a property in Butte, Montana, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Lena's estate was informally probated, and her son, Kenneth Johnson, was appointed personal representative. The estate's assets were distributed among Johnson's children and three of Katherine's children, with the remainder going to Johnson and Katherine's husband, Steven Grundhauser. The property in question was not resolved, and Johnson's children lived there rent-free.In 2020, Lena's will was discovered, which stated that all property should be divided equally between Katherine and Johnson or held in trust for their children if they predeceased Lena. This will contradicted the earlier distribution and indicated that the joint ownership of the property was for convenience only. Katherine's children and Steven Grundhauser petitioned for informal probate of Lena's estate, which was denied. Formal probate was opened in 2021 with Johnson as the personal representative. A mediation in 2022 led to a settlement agreement to buy out the interests of Katherine's children in the property.The Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, denied Katherine's estate's motion to intervene and for relief from judgment, finding that the estate was bound by the settlement agreement and that the doctrine of laches barred the motions. The court concluded that Grundhauser, as a petitioner, was aware of the settlement terms and had agreed to them.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed and remanded the case. It held that Katherine's estate should have been allowed to intervene as it had a valid legal interest in the property. The court found that the settlement agreement was based on a mutual mistake of law and that the district court's order was void for lack of jurisdiction and due process. The court also held that the doctrine of laches did not apply, as the delay in asserting the estate's rights was reasonable under the circumstances. View "In re Estate of Johnson" on Justia Law

In November 2006, Lloyd Kvelstad was murdered at a house party in Havre, Montana. Evidence showed that James Main was involved in a physical altercation with Kvelstad, during which Main choked Kvelstad multiple times. Kvelstad was later found severely beaten and unresponsive. Main was arrested and charged with deliberate homicide by felony murder. At trial, various testimonies and forensic evidence linked Main to the crime, leading to his conviction in February 2009.Main appealed his conviction, but the Montana Supreme Court upheld it in 2011, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Main later filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that the State violated his Brady rights by failing to disclose certain crime scene photos. He argued that these photos were crucial for determining the time and cause of Kvelstad's death. The District Court denied Main's petition without holding a hearing, taking judicial notice of findings from a co-defendant's postconviction case.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court found that even if the missing photos had been disclosed, they would not have changed the outcome of the trial. The evidence already presented was sufficient to establish Main's guilt for deliberate homicide by felony murder. The Court also found that Main's petition did not present newly discovered evidence but rather a new theory of the crime. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition without a hearing. View "Main v. State" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, William and Ellen Solem, own property in Flathead County’s “Neighborhood 800.” In 2008, the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) conducted a mass appraisal of lakefront properties in this neighborhood, significantly increasing the valuation of the Solems' property from $229,500 in 2002 to $1,233,050 in 2008. The Solems challenged the appraisal, arguing that DOR’s methodology was improper and unlawful. They sought approximately $450 in alleged overpaid taxes and filed a class action on behalf of other property owners in the neighborhood.The Eleventh Judicial District Court certified the case as a class action and held a bench trial on liability issues. The court found in favor of the Solems, ruling that DOR’s appraisal methodology was unlawful and unconstitutional. The court criticized DOR for excluding 17 outlier sales from its model and for using only three variables in its appraisal process. The court awarded damages, costs, and fees to the plaintiffs. The Solems also cross-appealed the court’s denial of their motion to amend the class definition.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court erred by substituting its judgment for that of DOR. The Supreme Court found that DOR’s mass appraisal methodology was consistent with accepted practices and that the Solems failed to meet the substantial burden of disproving the accuracy of DOR’s appraisal. The court also noted that the District Court improperly relied on the R squared value as the sole metric for accuracy. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s ruling and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court did not address the constitutionality of the payment-under-protest requirement, as it was unnecessary given the resolution of the primary issue. View "Solem v. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

Miriam Penado sought a temporary order of protection for herself and her two minor children in Butte-Silver Bow County Justice Court against Daniel Hunter, the children's father. The Justice Court issued a temporary ex parte order of protection and scheduled a hearing. Subsequently, Hunter filed a parenting plan petition in Gallatin County District Court and moved to remove the protection order case to that court, citing a state statute. The Justice Court transferred the case and vacated the hearing. The Gallatin County District Court then referred the case to a standing master, who set a hearing and maintained the temporary order of protection.Penado filed a motion in the Justice Court to vacate the transfer orders, which was denied. She appealed to the Gallatin County District Court, which also denied her appeal, stating that any appeal should have been made to the Butte-Silver Bow County District Court. The District Court found that Hunter had properly removed the case under the relevant statute. At the subsequent hearing, the District Court granted a one-year order of protection for Penado and allowed Hunter visitation rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the removal of the temporary order of protection case to the Gallatin County District Court was proper under § 40-15-301(3), MCA, which allows either party to remove the matter to district court before or after the hearing. The court found that the statute's language and intent were to consolidate related family law matters in the district court handling the parenting plan. The court also determined that Penado's due process rights were not violated, as she had notice and the opportunity to participate in the hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's final order of protection. View "Penado v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Jay Le Cleveland was approached by Polson police officers for a welfare check after a 911 caller reported him slumped over the steering wheel of his running car. Upon interaction, Cleveland explained he was fine but had burning eyes. When asked for his driver’s license, Cleveland stated he did not have it. The officer then verified Cleveland’s probation status and, with authorization from Cleveland’s probation officer, conducted a search of Cleveland’s car, finding drugs and a digital scale. Cleveland was charged with felony possession with intent to distribute.The Twentieth Judicial District Court denied Cleveland’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, ruling that the officer had particularized suspicion to expand the welfare check into a drug investigation. Cleveland entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to one count and agreeing to pay a $300 prosecution fee, while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that the officer had reasonable cause to continue the interaction beyond the initial welfare check based on Cleveland’s behavior and responses. The Court also found that the probation officer had reasonable suspicion to authorize the search of Cleveland’s car. Additionally, the Court upheld the $300 prosecution fee, noting that Cleveland had agreed to it in his plea deal and did not object at sentencing. View "State v. Cleveland" on Justia Law