Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The City of Great Falls, Benefis Health Care, and Electric City Power (ECP) filed a complaint with the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) challenging the lawfulness of NorthWestern Energy's (NWE) refusal to allow ECP to provide electricity supply to meters owned by the City and Benefis. The PSC issued a final order concluding that ECP could not provide electricity supply service to the disputed meters, basing its decision upon its interpretation that "customer," as contained in Mont. Code Ann. 69-8-201(2), meant an individual meter or point of delivery, rather than an entity or person. The City, Benefis, and ECP appealed the final order. The district court reversed, finding error in the PSC's statutory interpretation, and remanded the matter to the PSC to allow all of the City's and Benefis' meters to receive electricity supply service from ECP. NWE and the PSC appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court correctly determined that under the statute, the term "customer" means an entity or person rather than an individual meter and, accordingly, correctly permitted the City and Benefis to receive electricity from ECP at the disputed meters.

David Johnson, a life and disability insurance provider, entered a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to two counts of felony theft and to pay restitution for the loss incurred as a result of his fraudulent acts. At an evidentiary hearing to determine restitution, the state did not present sworn affidavits from victims. The district court ultimately adopted the rationale for calculating restitution proposed by the state and ordered that Johnson pay $71,374 in restitution. On appeal, Johnson argued that without victim affidavits the restitution order was unlawful and his sentence must be corrected. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Johnson failed to preserve his objection to the omission of victim affidavits. Except for his objection on the date of sentencing, Johnson did not alert the trial court to any claim that victim affidavits were required for an order of restitution, and Johnson's plea agreement expressly consented to the court's determination of restitution upon hearing.

Gary Hoff filed a complaint alleging contract and negligence claims against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Lake County Abstract & Title Company. Countrywide failed to appear or answer within the 20 days permitted by Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(a), after which Hoff moved for entry of default against Countrywide. Countrywide later attempted to reverse the default proceedings with a motion to set aside the default pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 55(c) and then a Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the entry of default for mistake or excusable neglect. The court denied the motions and entered a default judgment against Countrywide. Countrywide appealed and Hoff cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in its judgment against Countrywide because pursuant to Cribb v. Matlock Commc'n, Inc., good cause did not exist to set aside the entry of default, and (2) the district court did not err as Countrywide's 60(b) motion was procedurally defective. Lastly, the Court concluded the district court correctly denied Hoff's request for attorneys fees because the contract did not entitle either party to attorneys fees under the circumstances.

Michael Clark owns property on which he stores unused, abandoned, or broken vehicles. Joseph Doyle owns surrounding properties. After attempting for several years to get Clark to clean up the portion of Clark's property that was visible from Doyle's property, Doyle sued Clark and others, claiming that Clark breached a written and oral contract and created a public and private nuisance. A jury ruled in favor of Clark and the other defendants. Following the trial, the district court awarded costs to the defendants. Doyle appealed. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) in excluding certain exhibits and testimony, (2) in refusing to give Doye's jury instructions on breach of contract and negligence theories, and (3) by limiting Doyle's counsel's closing argument with threats of a mistrial. The Court, however, found the court abused its discretion by awarding Clark his costs. The Court affirmed the judgment of the district court but with instructions to vacate the award of costs to Clark.

Dennis Deschamps purchased a mobile home park from the estate of Larry Rasmussen. Deschamps financed part of the purchase price through the estate in the form of an indenture note. In the previous case, Deschamps sued the estate, and a jury found the estate was not liable for negligent non-disclosure. In 2007 the estate began the proceedings for a nonjudicial foreclosure on the park after Deschamps stopped making payments on the note. In the instant case, Deschamps again sued the estate, seeking a temporary injunction barring the estate's sale of the property. The district court granted the estate's motion for summary judgment. Deschamps appealed, arguing (1) that the estate is barred from conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure on the property because the nonjudicial foreclosure must have been pleaded as a compulsory counterclaim in the first case; and (2) Deschamps was entitled to raise the affirmative defense of fraud to defeat the estate's nonjudicial foreclosure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in ruling that the estate was not required to assert nonjudicial foreclosure as a mandatory counterclaim in the first action; and (2) as a plaintiff, Deschamps cannot assert affirmative defenses.

Following a jury trial, James Main Jr. was convicted of deliberate homicide and felony murder. Main appealed, arguing that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to two police officers while he was being driven to the police station and while at the police station; (2) the district court erred by denying Main's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence at the close of the state's case-in-chief; and (3) Main was denied effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) Main voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights; (2) the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find the elements of the crime had been committed beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) Main's ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be addressed in a postconviction proceeding.

While taking care of his infant daughter, R.G., Tony Garcia fell on top of R.G. then shook her when she did not respond. The next day R.G. was taken to the hospital where it was discovered that she was suffering from a traumatic subdural hemorrhage. The doctors found her injuries were consistent with violent shaking. Tony Garcia was charged with aggravated assault and found guilty after a jury trial. Garcia was sentenced to prison for 20 years, a period of time within the statutory parameters. Garcia appealed, arguing that his sentence was enhanced because he refused to admit guilt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that far from punishing Garcia for maintaining his innocence, the district court imposed the sentence because a combination of numerous factors, not least of which was the gravity of the offense.

Gregory Schindler purchased insurance from USAA for a house he owned. The house was destroyed by fire a year and a half later. USAA denied coverage on the basis that Schindler had committed fraud during his application conversation. Specifically, USAA determined that Greg had misrepresented that the house was his primary residence and a single family dwelling when instead it was a rental divided into eight apartment units. Schindler and his wife filed suit against USAA asserting breach of insurance contract and implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing. USAA defended on the basis of fraud. The jury found for USAA and awarded USAA the monies it had advanced to the Schindlers. The Schindlers appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying the Schindlers' motion for summary judgment; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony from a USAA employee; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Schindlers' motion in limine to preclude USAA from introducing evidence of fraud; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the Schindlers to order and pay for additional transcripts.

In 2010, MATL, a Calgary-based company currently building a power transmission line, filed a complaint for condemnation against Larry Salois, the guardian and conservator of Shirley Salois. Salois moved for summary judgment. The district court then issued an order concluding that MATL did not possess the power of eminent domain and had no authority to take the private property of a nonconsenting landowner. MATL appealed. The Supreme Court reversed. At issue was HB 198, which was made into law on May 9, 2011. The bill expressly gives a person issued a certificate under the Major Facility Siting Act the power of eminent domain. The legislature explicitly provided for HB 198 to apply retroactively to certificates issued after September 30, 2008. In October 2008, MATL received a Major Facility Siting Act certificate. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that (1) HB 198 applies retroactively to MATL's certificate issued pursuant to the Major Facility Citing Act, and (2) the explicit language of HB 198 is in conflict with the district court's order.

During the dissolution of the marriage of Karen and Rodney Stevens in 2008, the district court entered a temporary economic restraining order prohibiting any transfer by the parties of their assets during the pendency of the proceedings. The district court awarded Rodney all right and title in a truck titled in Karen's name and ordered Karen to transfer title to Rodney. Karen later transferred the title to her mother. In 2010 the district court issued a written order declining to hold Karen in contempt for her violation of the economic restraining order. Instead, the court ordered Karen to remove any liens on the truck and to secure a new certificate of title and ruled if Karen refused to do so, a judgment would be entered against her in the amount of $21,000. Later, Karen retook possession of the vehicle. Rodney appealed. The Supreme Court determined that the court acted within its discretion in refusing to issue a contempt order but did not have authority to modify the distribution of property under its prior decree without notice to both parties and an opportunity to be heard. However, because Rodney was not prejudiced by the district court's ruling, the judgment was affirmed.