Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff law firm filed a complaint alleging that Defendants and Plaintiff had previously entered into a contract for legal services and that Defendants breached this contract by failing to fully pay for the legal services performed by Plaintiff. Defendants failed to file an answer or otherwise appear within the required time period, and the district court subsequently entered an order of default judgment against Defendants. Defendants filed a motion to vacate the entry of default some nine months later. The district court denied the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not slightly abuse its discretion in denying Defendants' motion to vacate its entry of default judgment; (2) the district court did not err by awarding attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff; and (3) consideration of Defendants' appeal of the court's denial of Defendants' motions seeking to alter or set aside the court's earlier denial of Defendants' motion to vacate the entry of default judgment was barred. View "Wittich v. O'Connell " on Justia Law

Margaret Howard was driving south and John Bradford was driving north on a two-lane highway when the two vehicles collided. Neither Margaret nor John survived. The Howards, the co-personal representatives of Margaret's estate, filed a wrongful death and survivorship action against the Bradfords, the co-personal representatives of John's estate, alleging negligence. A jury found that John was not liable in negligence for the death of Margaret. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err ruling that a defense expert's testimony was supported by an adequate factual foundation and by determining that the scientific method used by the expert to reconstruct the accident was reliable and admissible; (2) the Bradfords did not violate the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to supplement the disclosure of the defense expert; and (3) the district court did not err by denying the Howards' motion for a new trial View "Wheaton v. Bradford" on Justia Law

This matter arose from the suicide of a sixteen-year-old girl, who was residing at the Spring Creek Lodge Academy at the time of her death. Following the girl's death, her mother, Plaintiff, brought an action against the owner of the school, its on-site directors, including Teen Help, and various related entities. Claims against Teen Help were settled before trial, and the settlement was later reduced to a judgment. While Newman I proceeded to trial, Newman filed this declaratory judgment and breach of contract action against Teen Help's two insurers to collect on the settlement and judgment, arguing that the insurers breached their obligation to defend and indemnify Teen Help in Newman I. The district court determined the insurers were severally liable for the underlying judgment and awarded attorney's fees and interest on the underlying judgment. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's judgment as it pertained to the insurers, its award of interest on the underlying judgment, and its application of Montana law; and (2) reversed the court's ruling on attorney's fees. Remanded for recalculation of reasonable attorney's fees. View "Newman v. Scottsdale Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2002 when their children were approximately fifteen, twelve, and two years old. Afterward, the children resided at different times with either Mother or Father. Therefore, both Mother and Father were at times obligated to the other for child support. Since their divorce, the parties were engaged in years of litigation against each other. This appeal challenged the legal conclusions set forth in the district court's 2012 order regarding child support arrearage. The parties had failed to timely pay their child support obligations each other, which resulted in an arrearage on the part of both parents. The district court determined that Father's child support arrearage was to be offset against Mother's larger child support arrearage and that the remaining marital debt owed by Father had been discharged in bankruptcy court in 2011. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's calculations of the interest on both parties' arrearages; and (2) otherwise affirmed. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of Steab" on Justia Law

The district court granted temporary legal custody of two young children to the Department of Public Health and Human Services after Mother was arrested on criminal charges. The Department subsequently filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights. After adjudicating the children as neglected and youths in need of care, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights without requiring reunification efforts or a treatment plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that reunification efforts and another treatment plan were not in the children's best interests and terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re E.Z.C." on Justia Law

Wife filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Husband in the district court. The matter subsequently came before a standing master. After a hearing, the standing master issued her findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final decree of dissolution, which incorporated by reference a final parenting plan. After the final decree was entered, Husband appealed. However, Husband did not file any objections in the district court to the standing master's findings and conclusions within the ten-day period prescribed by Mont. Code Ann. 3-5-126(2). The Supreme Court dismissed Husband's appeal without prejudice, holding that section 3-5-126(2) and the district court's standing order required that Husband, as a prerequisite for perfecting his appeal to the Court, first file specific objections in the district court to the standing master's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final decree of dissolution. View "Beals v. Beals" on Justia Law

In 2006, Plaintiffs sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident and incurred medical expenses in excess of $1,000,000. Plaintiffs subsequently learned that they had only $5,000 in medical payments coverage and did not have any underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage after a transfer of their Oregon State Farm policy to Montana by the Mark Olson State Farm Agency. The driver who caused the accident carried the statutory minimum automobile liability insurance limits. Plaintiffs sued State Farm and Mark Olson, requesting declaratory relief and a reformation of the contract and alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and conduct sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm and Olson on Plaintiffs' negligence claims. Remanded for trial. View "Bailey v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of an open alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle, failure to drive on the right side of a roadway, and driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court subsequently granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) incorrectly concluded that, because the arresting officer did not follow Mont. Code Ann. 46-6-312, all evidence gathered after Defendant's arrest should be suppressed because the arrest was lawful; (2) incorrectly concluded that the arresting officer's failure to advise Defendant of her Miranda rights at the time of arrest required suppression of all evidence obtained after her arrest with the exception of two self-incriminating statements Defendant made in response to the officer's questions after he placed her in the patrol vehicle; and (3) incorrectly concluded that evidence seized from Defendant's vehicle must be suppressed, as the plain view doctrine permitted seizure of the evidence. View "State v. Kelm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced for sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence a recored interview with the victim in violation of Defendant's confrontation rights or in contravention of Mont. R. Evid. 613(b); (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction under the criteria set forth in State v. Yuhas; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (4) Defendant's argument that his attorney provided ineffective assistance at trial should be raised in a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

The State petitioned for permanent legal custody and termination of Father's parental rights to his two children after the court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied and approved treatment plans for Father prepared by the State. The district court subsequently terminated Father's parental rights to the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father's argument that the district court improperly concluded that Father's treatment plans were appropriate was not preserved for appellate review; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to terminate Father's parental rights under the ICWA where (i) a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the State made "active efforts" to provide services and programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful, and (ii) the State proved that the children would likely suffer serious emotional or physical harm if Father was to retain custody. View "In re D.S.B." on Justia Law