Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Heins rented a house from Julia Benintendi and the Perkerwicz family (hereinafter B&P). B&P alleged the Heins caused considerable damage to the property when they vacated the premises. The Heins countered that B&P unlawfully retained their security deposit and refused to reimburse the Heins for home and lawn improvements. B&P sued and obtained a default judgment. The district court subsequently set aside the default judgment and held a jury trial. B&P were awarded damages but not attorney fees or costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees to both parties; (2) the district court incorrectly required each party to bear its own costs because, as the prevailing party, B&P was entitled to its costs under Mont. Code Ann. 25-10-101; and (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment because it had good cause to do so. View "Benintendi v. Hein" on Justia Law

Employee worked as a shareholder accountant for Employer. Employee's employment contract contained a covenant not to compete. After Employer ended its employment relationship with Employee, Employee began working at Employer's competitor, where she provided accounting services for a few of Employer's former clients in violation of the restrictive covenant. Employee sought a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable. The district court determined that the covenant was reasonable and enforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Employer's covenant was unenforceable because (1) Montana law requires that an employer establish a legitimate business interest in a restrictive covenant, which demands that the restriction on post-employment activities be necessary to protect an employer's good will, customer relationships, or trade information; (2) an employer lacks a legitimate business interest in a covenant when, under ordinary circumstances, it ends the employment relationship with the employee; and (3) Employer in this case elected to end its employment relationship with Employee without any misconduct on the part of Employee. View "Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C." on Justia Law

After Decedent died, Decedent's wife moved to admit his will to probate. Decedent's son, Bruce, filed an objection, alleging that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity to enter into the will, and that another of Decedent's sons, Neil, exerted undue influence over Decedent. Bruce further sought to set aside a cattle sale and options agreement and lease-cattle agreement, alleging that Decedent's lack of capacity to contract voided the agreements and that the agreements were the product of Neil's undue influence over Decedent. The district court granted the Estate's motion to dismiss, concluding that Bruce lacked standing to contest the will and agreements. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Bruce's allegations that a previous will existed that devised to him a larger portion of Decedent's estate than did the disputed will created a sufficient basis for Bruce to establish standing to contest the will; and (2) Bruce possessed standing to challenge the validity of the agreements to the extent that they concerned real property. Remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate its order to dismiss and to permit the parties to engage in discovery. View "In re Estate of Glennie" on Justia Law

Donald Puhto and his sister, Janet Barrett, commenced an action against Defendant Smith Funeral Chapels, alleging negligence and misrepresentation in the handling of their deceased uncle's remains. Counsel for Puhto and Barrett withdrew from the representation. Defendant's counsel then sent Puhto and Barrett a notice of removal of attorney for plaintiffs informing them of the need to appoint a new attorney or appear in person at a show cause hearing. After Puhto and Barrett failed to respond to the notice of removal and failed to appear at the hearing, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. The court subsequently set aside the dismissal as to Barrett. The court then denied Puhto's motion to set aside the dismissal and request for an evidentiary hearing, finding that Puhto did not raise sufficient indications of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect under Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Puhto had not shown the district court abused its discretion in determining he had not proven excusable neglect.

After a fire damaged a building the Hinebauchs purchased from the McRaes, the Hinebauchs filed a complaint against the McRaes, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court granted the McRaes' motion for summary judgment, determining (1) because no evidence was presented showing that the McRaes agreed to obtain insurance for the building naming the Hinebauchs as an insured party, there was a lack of mutual consent and the agreement was unenforceable; and (2) the Hinebauchs did not establish any requisite misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and the Hinebauchs had unclean hands in seeking equitable relief on the claim for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute of frauds precluded the Hinebauchs from enforcing any promises ostensibly made to them by the McRaes; and (2) the Hinebauchs wholly failed to show any misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and therefore, the Hinebauchs' claim for unjust enrichment was without merit.

After a fire damaged a building the Hinebauchs purchased from the McRaes, the Hinebauchs filed a complaint against the McRaes, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court granted the McRaes' motion for summary judgment, determining (1) because no evidence was presented showing that the McRaes agreed to obtain insurance for the building naming the Hinebauchs as an insured party, there was a lack of mutual consent and the agreement was unenforceable; and (2) the Hinebauchs did not establish any requisite misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and the Hinebauchs had unclean hands in seeking equitable relief on the claim for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the statute of frauds precluded the Hinebauchs from enforcing any promises ostensibly made to them by the McRaes; and (2) the Hinebauchs wholly failed to show any misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and therefore, the Hinebauchs' claim for unjust enrichment was without merit.

CLR Properties and Choice Land Corporation (collectively, CLR) hired Waynco Construction (Waynco) as the general contractor for a commercial real estate improvement project. Waynco solicited a bid from AAA Construction of Missoula (AAA) to perform concrete work. After AAA submitted its bid, Waynco used AAA's bid to formulate Waynco's general contract bid to CLR. CLR accepted Waynco's bid. While AAA completed a majority of the work outlined in its bid by the time it left the project, a dispute arose between Waynco and AAA about the parties' subcontract agreement. Waynco eventually failed to pay AAA for any labor or materials. AAA filed a complaint against CLR and Waynco, alleging that Waynco had breached the contract and CLR had been unjustly enriched from AAA's work. The district court granted CLR's motion for summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claims and, after a trial, held for AAA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly concluded that AAA's bid constituted a binding contract between the parties; (2) substantial evidence supported the district court's conclusion that Waynco was the materially breaching party; and (3) the district court properly denied CLR's claim for attorney fees.

Sellers entered an alleged contract with Buyer for the sale of property. After the parties failed to complete the sale, Buyer sued Sellers, seeking specific performance of the alleged contract. Buyer filed an amended complaint that added as a defendant Attorney, who had served as counsel for Sellers in the failed transaction, alleging fraud and other tortious conduct. Attorney filed a motion to substitute the district court judge, which the district court denied after finding Attorney's motion was untimely. At issue on appeal was whether Attorney qualified as a third-party defendant who possessed an independent right of substitution as opposed to a subsequently joined defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Attorney and Buyer qualified as adverse parties, and therefore, Attorney was a third-party defendant; and (2) Attorney timely filed his motion of substitution. Remanded.

Frederick and Mandelena Harmon bought a home pursuant to a buy-sell agreement that realtor Dianne Burright, a licensed real estate salesperson who worked for Fiscus Realty, prepared at the Fiscus Realty office. The home was built by Dianne's husband, Jerry. The Harmons subsequently discovered numerous construction problems. The Harmons sued Defendants Jerry and Dianne Burright and Fiscus Reality, raising several causing of action, including a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). A jury returned a verdict against the Burrights on breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation claims and held for Defendants on all other claims. After trial, Defendants filed motions for attorney fees as prevailing parties under the Act, which the district court denied. Fiscus Realty appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an award of attorney fees to Fiscus Realty as the Harmons' claims had a basis in fact and law and were not frivolous, unreasonable or unfounded.

John Miller pled guilty to two counts of deliberate homicide. Miller later filed suit against James Goetz, the attorney that defended him, and arranged for Patrick Begley's limited representation in his claims against Goetz. Begley later withdrew from representing Miller. Miller then filed suit against Begley, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent deceit. The district court granted summary judgment to Begley, finding that Begley had reasonably assisted Miller with his claims against Goetz and the dismissal of the Goetz claim was based on legal deficiencies unrelated to Begley's legal services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Begley as Miller failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his claims.