Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana had to decide if the Thirteenth Judicial District Court erred by disallowing a stipulated agreement for entry of a consent judgment between American Express National Bank (Amex) and Jocelyn Born (Born), and subsequently dismissing the action with prejudice.Born had accumulated a debt of $20,754.69 on her American Express credit card that she failed to repay, despite Amex’s demands for repayment. The parties had entered into a stipulation and consent agreement where Born agreed to the entry of judgment for the amount of her debt, plus costs. After some payments by Born, the amount owed had reduced to $19,368.19. The District Court initially entered a consent judgment for the reduced amount but later the same day vacated the judgment and dismissed the litigation with prejudice.Amex appealed this decision arguing that the District Court misunderstood the nature of the stipulation and consent agreement and treated it as a "cognovit judgment" - a judgment entered in advance of legal action in case of default, rather than a "judgment on consent" - an agreed judgment entered after action is commenced.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana agreed with Amex's argument, finding that the stipulation was a valid consent judgment and constituted a contract between the parties. The court held that the District Court erred in vacating the judgment and abused its discretion by denying Amex's motion for relief. The court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the matter for entry of a consent judgment as contemplated by the parties' stipulation. View "American Express v. Born" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting various mortgage lenders and trustees summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for negligence and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that genuine issues of material fact did not preclude summary judgment.Plaintiff filed an action asserting negligent loan supervision/administration, breach of the implied contract covenant of good faith and fair dealing, anticipatory declaratory judgment, and quiet title to mortgaged property. The district court granted summary judgment to Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting BOA summary judgment on Plaintiff's asserted negligence and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. View "House v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. (SCL) on Cheryl Bratton's claims, holding that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to SCL.This case stemmed from SCL's practice of issuing refunds to its patients, for such reasons as overpayment on an account, in the form of prepaid MasterCard debit cards issued through Bank of America. Plaintiff brought this suit alleging, among other claims, constructive trust based on unjust enrichment, unfair trade practices under the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), money had and received, and declaratory judgment. During discovery, SCL asked Bank of America to issue checks to Bratton for her refunds, which Bank of America did. The district court granted summary judgment for SCL. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to SCL on Bratton's claims and by denying Bratton's cross motions for summary judgment. View "Bratton v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and dismissing Plaintiff's claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and negligence, holding that Wells Fargo did not breach the deed of trust and that Plaintiff's remaining claims presented no genuine issue of material fact.Wells Fargo assumed service of a loan obtained by Plaintiff, who executed a deed of trust with certain property serving as collateral for the loan. Plaintiff failed to pay property taxes assessed to Lot 3, which included the property. Wells Fargo paid the taxes on the entirety of Lot 3 and required Plaintiff to repay those taxes. Plaintiff later brought this suit. The district court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo, reasoning that the deed of trust's unambiguous language permitted Wells Fargo to pay Lot 3's taxes in full. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the deed of trust, Wells Fargo did not breach of the contract by paying the delinquent taxes on lot 3 and requiring Plaintiff to repay those taxes; and (2) because Wells Fargo did not breach the deed of trust, it likewise did not violate a duty owed to Plaintiff under the deed of trust, and as such Plaintiff's remaining claims were properly dismissed. View "Graham-Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff’s amended complaint against several lenders, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing some of Plaintiff’s claims but erred in dismissing the remaining claims.After Plaintiff defaulted on her loan on real property, she received at least nine notices of sale. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Lenders, alleging six causes of action. The district court granted Lenders’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim as a matter of law or in dismissing Plaintiff’s negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fore failure to state sufficient facts to entitle her to relief; and (2) incorrectly determined that Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to state a claim on her asserted breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claims. View "Puryer v. HSBC Bank" on Justia Law

In this case brought in connection with the sale of Plaintiffs’ home at a foreclosure sale, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs’ asserted negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claims against Bank of America, N.A. and ReconTrust Company, N.A. pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court held (1) the district court correctly held that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint failed to state sufficient facts entitling them to relief on all essential elements of their asserted negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and MCPA claims; and (2) the district court did not err by not sua sponte converting ReconTrusts’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(d) upon the filing of an affidavit in support of Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition. View "Anderson v. ReconTrust Co., N.A." on Justia Law

Nan Stevenson purchased a fifth wheel trailer at the Billings, Montana location of Big Sky RV, Inc., a Montana corporation with its principal office registered in Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Stevenson provided a down payment and financed the remainder of the purchase price through Ally Bank. Ally later initiated this complaint against Stevenson in Chouteau County, claiming that Stevenson had defaulted on her payment obligations under the loan agreement. Steven filed a third-party complaint against Big Sky, alleging damages for breach of contract, violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and violations of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). Big Sky filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for change of venue, arguing that, under Mont. Code Ann. 30-14-133(1), venue was improper in Chouteau County and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the MCPA claim. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that it had subject matter jurisdiction and that venue was proper in Chouteau County. View "Ally Financial, Inc. v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

In 2005, Martha Guthrie, Richard Guthrie, and Richard Guthrie, as custodian for Taylor Guthrie (collectively, Guthrie), took out a loan for the purchase of real property. Capital One eventually took over as successor to the mortgage. In 2010, Capital initiated a foreclosure action against Guthrie. Capital moved for summary judgment seeking the right to foreclose on the property. Ultimately, the trial judge granted Capital’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Guthrie had failed to put any material fact in dispute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the retired district court judge had jurisdiction over the proceedings; (2) the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to Capital One on the equitable estoppel claim; and (3) the district court properly relied on an affidavit when it granted Capital One’s summary judgment motion. View "Capital One, NA v. Guthrie" on Justia Law

After securing two loans with deeds of trust on the same property, Appellants paid off the smaller loan. A title agent filed a deed of reconveyance containing a scrivener’s error that mistakenly released Appellants’ interest in their property from the larger lien. Although the error was later corrected, Appellants argued that U.S. Bank, the beneficiary to the larger loan, did not have a valid, perfected lien prior to commencement of Appellants’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The district court granted U.S. Bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lien at issue survived Appellants’ bankruptcy proceedings because the lien was unaffected by the scrivener’s error contained within the deed of reconveyance. View "Reeves v. US Bank National Ass’n" on Justia Law

In a period of approximately three years, Masonry by Muller, Inc. (Masonry) and Flathead Bank entered into four promissory notes. William Muller signed the promissory notes individually and as president of Masonry and personally guaranteed three of the loans. Flathead Bank later filed a complaint alleging that Muller and Masonry had defaulted on all four loans and that it was entitled to the outstanding balance of the loans. The district court granted Flathead Bank’s motion for summary judgment. Muller appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in finding that Flathead Bank’s filing of an IRS Form 1099-C did not extinguish Muller’s debt, as the issuance of an IRS Form 1099-C is not prima facie evidence of a creditor’s intent to discharge a debt; and (2) in finding that Muller could only represent himself personally and could not appear on behalf of Masonry. View "Flathead Bank of Bigfork, Montana v. Masonry by Muller, Inc." on Justia Law