Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2003, the marriage of Tonia Marez and David Marshall was dissolved by decree. For the next decade, the parties were involved in a bitter dispute over the parenting of their minor daughter. In 2013, after the daughter reached the age of fourteen, David moved to hold Tonia in contempt for failure to comply with the parenting plan. Tonia subsequently moved to hold David in contempt for failure to pay child support. David then moved for sanctions against Tonia for filing numerous pleadings with the intent to “harass, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” The district court granted David’s motion for contempt, denied Tonia’s motion for contempt, and imposed sanctions against Tonia. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the order finding Tonia in contempt and the order refusing to find David in contempt, as the record supported the district court’s conclusions; and (2) declined to address the merits of the sanctions against Tonia, as the award of sanctions was not yet a final judgment because it did not include a necessary determination of the amount of costs and attorney fees awarded. View "In re Marriage of Marez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who leased commercial property from Defendant, filed a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau, alleging that Defendant violated the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) by sexually harassing her. The Montana Human Rights Commission ruled that Plaintiff could proceed with her claim because the MHRA “prohibits unlawful discrimination in commercial property transactions, as well as all other real estate transactions.” The district court vacated the Commission’s decision and reinstated the hearing officer’s, ruling that the Commission violated Defendant’s right to due process by analyzing Plaintiff’s action under the MHRA’s real estate provisions. The Supreme Court remanded, directing the district court to resolve the issue that formed the alternate basis for Defendant’s challenge to the Commission’s decision - whether the MHRA’s real estate provisions applied to Plaintiff’s commercial lease. On remand, the district court ruled that the MHRA’s real estate provisions prohibit discrimination in commercial real estate transactions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the MHRA applies to Plaintiff’s commercial lease. View "Bates v. Neva" on Justia Law

In 1999, Randall Simms was injured while on the job. Thereafter, Simms became totally disabled and, since 2006, had been receiving total disability benefits. Dr. Michael Schabacker was Simms’ workers’ compensation doctor from 2004 through 2007. In 2010, Simms filed a complaint against Schabacker and his employer, alleging that Schabacker had unlawfully disseminated his private, confidential healthcare information to a law enforcement officer without Simms' permission. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Schabacker. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding (1) Schabacker was statutorily authorized to release relevant healthcare information regarding Simms to the workers’ compensation insurer, and (2) Schabacker did not knowingly assist a law enforcement agency when he discussed Simms’ medical condition with the workers’ compensation insurer. View "Simms v. Schabacker" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of incest, one count of solicitation, and one count of sexual abuse of children. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his discovery requests for information contained in the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) files of his two victims without first conducting an in camera review. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and ordered the case remanded to the district court to conduct an in camera review of the victims’ DPHHS files, holding that Defendant’s request was sufficient to invoke his right to potentially exculpatory information in the DPHHS files, and once he invoked that right, it was the trial court’s duty to conduct an in camera review to ascertain whether there was any exculpatory evidence in the files. View "State v. Johnston" on Justia Law

Mother filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father, who was incarcerated. Mother’s petition relied on Father’s alleged abandonment of the parties’ child and failure to support the child. After Father, who was unrepresented, was served he attempted to comply with the summons but failed to answer the petition in a timely manner. The district court entered a default judgment terminating Father’s parental rights based solely on his failure to answer the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court incorrectly applied the law when it terminated Father’s parental rights without an accompanying petition for adoption and by a default judgment with no hearing, no evidence, and no findings. View "Bergsing v. Cardona" on Justia Law

In 2011, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with Wife. In 2014, the district court entered a final decree of dissolution and entered a final parenting plan for the parties’ three minor children. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the children’s best interest to reside primarily with Mother and in awarding primary custody of the children to Mother; but (2) the district court abused its discretion with regard to Father’s child support obligation. Remanded for redetermination of child support or for entry of findings explaining why clear and convincing evidence supported any departure from the uniform child support guidelines adopted by the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services. View "In re Marriage of Pesanti" on Justia Law

In 2006, Robert and Teresa James brought a lot in a rural subdivision. At the time of the purchase, Chicago Title Insurance Company issued a title insurance policy that insured against loss or damage by reason of “lack of right of access to and from the land.” In 2013, the Jameses sued Chicago Title, contending that the title insurance policy required Chicago Title to provide them “legal” access to their lot. The district court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that the Jameses failed to establish that the title insurance policy entitled them to “legal access” to their lot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted judgment to Chicago Title on the Jameses’ claim, under the title insurance policy, that they lacked a right of access to their real property, as the language of the policy insured against loss from not having “a right” of access, and the Jameses clearly had a right of access when they bought the lot. View "James v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After Mother and Father, the parents of two children, divorced, Father married Stepmother, and the two children resided with Father and Stepmother. Stepmother filed petitions for adoption of the children and an order terminating Mother’s parental rights. Thereafter, the district court entered a decree of adoption in Stepmother’s favor and terminated Mother’s parental rights to the children, finding that Mother had willfully abandoned the children and had not supported them. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Montana’s right to equal protection requires that counsel be appointed for indigent parents in termination proceedings brought under the Adoption Act; and (2) on remand, the district court was directed to appoint counsel for Mother if it determined that she was financially eligible. View "In re Adoption of A.W.S." on Justia Law

Centennial Contracting and Development, LLC (Centennial) and Leonard Investments, LLC (Leonard) obtained a judgment against Don and Susan Salminen. Morrison & Frampton law firm (Frampton) represented Centennial and Leonard in the litigation. The district court subsequently issued a writ of execution and garnishment. Frampton subsequently seized virtually everything in the Salminens house. Thereafter, the district court held that all of the property seized from the Salminens’ home was exempt from execution and must be returned. The Salminens commenced this action against Frampton, Centennial, and Leonard, asserting claims for violation of rights secured by Article II of the Montana Constitution, abuse of legal process, conversion, and wrongful levy. The district court granted Frampton’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and then granted judgment on the pleadings to Centennial and Leonard on the remaining claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in determining that the Salminens failed to state a claim for conversion as a matter of law, abuse of process and wrongful levy at this stage in the process. Remanded. View "Salminen v. Morrison & Frampton, PLLP" on Justia Law

In 2007, the district court granted dissolution of the marriage of Husband and Wife. Multiple appeals and other related cases followed. In 2013, the district court issued an amended judgment in which it revised downward from an earlier judgment the amount of money Husband owed Wife and held that Wife had the right to have the judgment entered as a foreign judgment in Idaho where Husband retained property. Husband appealed this amended judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arguments Husband raised on appeal were either not properly before the Court. The Court also granted Wife’s request that Husband be sanctioned as a vexatious litigant, as sanctions were necessary to curb further abusive litigant by Husband. View "In re Marriage of Guill" on Justia Law