Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Scottie and Dawn Pederson (the Pedersons) and Rocky Mountain Bank (the Bank) entered into a construction loan agreement pursuant to which the Bank agreed to lend the Pedersons several thousand dollars. In 2008, the Pedersons and the Bank agreed to finance the construction loan through three short term loans. In 2009, the Pedersons tried to refinance their loans but were unable to do so. Due to alleged failures on the part of the Bank, the Pedersons brought suit against the Bank in 2011, asserting claims for, inter alia, negligence, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. After it was served with the complaint, the Bank filed a Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, asserting the statutes of limitations had run on all of the Pedersons' claims. The district court granted the Bank's motion and dismissed the Pedersons' claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the applicable statutes of limitations began to run in 2008 because the Pedersons' claims had accrued and they had discovered the facts constituting the claims; and (2) by filing their complaint more than three years later, the Pedersons failed to commence their action within any of the applicable statutes of limitations. View "Pederson v. Rocky Mountain Bank" on Justia Law

Judith Newman (Newman), mother and personal representative of the estate of Karlye Newman (Karlye), appealed from certain pretrial and trial rulings made in the district court concerning the suicidal death of Karlye while at a boarding school for troubled teenagers. Newman named as Defendants Robert Lichfield and the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools. A jury found Defendants were not negligent, did not commit deceit or negligent misrepresentation, and were not liable for the possible wrongful acts of other defendants regarding Karlye's death. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court abused its discretion in limiting the scope of evidence regarding foreseeability, as the exclusion of the evidence was highly prejudicial to Newman and largely prevented her from being able to argue foreseeability, duty, and negligence on the part of Defendants. Remanded for a new trial. View "Newman v. Lichfield" on Justia Law

H&H Development, LLC hired Jim Ramlow for legal services. In 2007, H&H filed a pro se complaint in Lake County against Ramlow and his law firm for professional negligence. Eleven days later, H&H, through counsel, filed a complaint in Flathead County against Eagle Bend, seeking damages based on allegations similar to those in the Lake County complaint. H&H settled with Eagle Bend. In 2010, H&H filed an amended Flathead County complaint that named Ramlow and his firm as defendants and included a lawyer's signature. The district court subsequently declared the Lake County complaint null and void after determining that a non-lawyer could not file a complaint on behalf of a limited liability company. Thereafter, the court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the amended complaint based upon the running of the applicable statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a district court has discretion to determine whether a corporation should be able to relate back to an amended complaint signed by a lawyer, to its original, pro se complaint. Remanded to assess whether Mont. R. Civ. P. 15(c) permitted H&H's amended complaint in Flathead County to relate back to H&H's pro se Lake County complaint. View "H & H Dev., LLC v. Ramlow" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife filed for divorce. During the dissolution proceeding, a guardian ad litem (GAL), who was appointed for the parties' two daughters, recommended co-parenting with equal visitation by both parents. At the final hearing, the parties stipulated to the district court that they had reached agreement on a final parenting plan. They also agreed that no child support or maintenance would be paid to either party. The district court took judicial notice of the GAL's recommendations. Subsequently, and prior to dissolution, the GAL revised her recommendations and recommended that Husband be the children's primary residential parent with Wife having visitation rights. The court adopted the GAL's custody recommendation and also ordered Wife to pay Husband child support. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the GAL's revised plan constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in relying upon the hearsay evidence in order to determine the matter of child custody. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of Puccinelli" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced in 2003. A final parenting plan was incorporated into their divorce decree allocating parenting time in regard to Child. In 2011, Wife filed a motion to amend the parenting plan. The district court granted the motion, which resulted in allowing Child to determine future residential decisions annually. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the order amending the parenting plan and reinstated the original parenting plan, holding that the district court's findings were insufficient to establish the statutory standard for amendment of the parenting plan; and (2) reversed the district court's holding that Child would determine his own residential arrangements, concluding that the court erred in delegating to Child the power to modify the parenting plan in the future, as the determination of whether a parenting plan is appropriate is a legal conclusion that can only be made by a court. View "In re Marriage of Whyte " on Justia Law

M.W., a juvenile who admitted that he committed sexual assault, was adjudged as delinquent and placed on probation until the age of eighteen, subject to numerous conditions. After M.W. was unsuccessfully discharged from sexual offender treatment, the youth court required him to register as a sexual offender. The case was subsequently transferred to the district court, which later denied M.W.'s petition to be relieved of the registration requirement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly analyzed the issue by concluding that it did not have the statutory authority, at the present time, to relieve M.W. from the registration requirement. View "In re M.W." on Justia Law

Patterson Enterprises hired Archie Johnson Contracting (AJC) to perform blasting on a road construction project. During the project, an entire section of rock above one of Patterson's excavators collapsed, crushing it. Patterson filed suit against AJC, asserting various claims, including negligence and strict liability. AJC asserted various affirmative defenses, including contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. AJC also filed a counterclaim, asserting breach of contract. The jury (1) returned a verdict finding that AJC's blasting caused the damages sustained by Patterson and that Patterson and its employees assumed the risk of harm; (2) allocated fifty-one percent of the fault to AJC and forty-nine percent to Patterson, and awarded damages to Patterson in the amount of $50,000; and (3) returned a verdict in favor of AJC on its breach of contract claim, awarding damages to AJC in the amount of $19,255. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) when it permitted the defense of assumption of the risk to go to the jury; and (2) in failing to instruct the jury regarding the subjective knowledge requirement set forth in Lutz v. National Crane Corp. View "Patterson Enters., Inc. v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Jimmy Booth was charged with, inter alia, felony criminal possession of precursors to dangerous drugs pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-107. Booth appealed, claiming that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of the charge and that his defense counsel was ineffective in failing to move for dismissal at the close of the State's case. At issue was whether the plain language of section 45-9-107 required a showing that Booth possessed a combination of listed precursors set forth in the statute or whether possession of pseudoephedrine alone was sufficient for a conviction. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) section 45-9-107(1)(a) requires possession of two or more of the statute's listed precursor chemicals as an element of the offense; and (2) therefore, the jury could not have rationally found beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence seized from Booth met the statutory requirements of the statute. View "State v. Booth" on Justia Law

Appellants, a group of individuals, filed a complaint with the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) against NorthWestern Energy (NWE) concerning NWE's provision of street lighting services. The PSC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the four named complainants lacked standing under Mont. Code Ann. 69-3-321. Appellants then filed an amended complaint in which they named four additional complainants. The PSC concluded (1) Appellants were procedurally barred from amending their complaint, and (2) the court would not reconsider its earlier ruling on standing in any event. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the original complainants lacked standing to pursue their complaint in the PSC under section 69-3-321; but (2) the PSC's and district court's rationales for rejecting the amended complaint were incorrect as, in this case, there was not a categorical procedural bar to the filing of an amended complaint following an order of dismissal for lack of standing. View "Williamson v. Mont. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

After Susan Brady, who was driving, reported that another driver in a pickup truck had been engaging in illegal activity, a highway patrol trooper pulled over a pickup truck matching Brady's description. The driver of the truck, James Gill, later received citations for DUI and possession of alcohol while under the age of twenty-one. Gill filed a motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement did not have a particularized suspicion to support an investigative stop of his vehicle. The justice court denied the motion. Gill subsequently entered a guilty plea of DUI and unlawful possession. The district court also denied Gill's motion to suppress and remanded the case to justice court for execution of sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information provided to the trooper contained sufficient indicia of reliability to form the basis for the trooper's particularized suspicion that Gill's pickup was the same one that Brady observed engaged in criminal activity, thereby warranting further investigation. View "State v. Gill" on Justia Law