Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to Child, holding that Father was not denied due process and that his treatment plan was appropriate.In terminating Father's parental rights the district court determined that Father did not successfully complete his treatment plan and that the condition rendering him unfit, unable, or unwilling to parent was not likely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father's due process rights were not violated when the district court terminated Father's parental rights; and (2) Father waived his right to appeal the appropriateness of the court-ordered treatment plan, and the district court's approval of the treatment plan did not constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice or compromise the integrity of the proceedings. View "In re B.J.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court affirming the decision and sentence of the municipal court finding Defendant guilty of partner of family member assault (PFMA) and criminal mischief, holding that Defendant's PFMA conviction must be reversed and that there were sentencing errors in Defendant's criminal mischief conviction.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court erred by affirming the municipal court's order that Defendant waived his right to a jury trial for his PFMA charge by failing to appear at an omnibus hearing; (2) certain provisions in Defendant's sentencing agreement requiring him to pay fines that were not statutorily authorized were illegal; and (3) Defendant was entitled to receive four days of credit for jail time served, instead of two days of credit, against his sentence. View "City of Kalispell v. Salsgiver" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in this case alleging a violation of Article 9A of Montana's adopted version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), holding that the district court erred when it concluded that Article 9 no longer applied to the agreement between the parties.Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an installment sale contract and security agreement to buy a mobile home. When Plaintiffs continually missed payments on the mobile home Defendants sent a notice of default and then demanded the outstanding balance on the agreement. Plaintiffs moved out of the mobile home and voluntarily returned it to Defendants. After Defendants sold the mobile home to a new buyer Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that Defendants violated provision of Article 9A. The district court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to Defendants' UCC violations, and Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that issue. View "Christman v. Clause" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the justice court convicting Defendant of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI), holding that the justice court erred by permitting the State to introduce evidence of Defendant's prior DUI convictions in an aggravated DUI trial.In reversing Defendant's conviction, the Supreme Court held (1) the justice court erred when it allowed the State to introduce evidence of Defendant's prior DUI convictions during trial, and there was no reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence of Defendant's prior DUIs might have contributed to her conviction; and (2) the trial should have been bifurcated to cure the unfair prejudice presented by evidence of Defendant's prior DUI convictions. View "State v. Holland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's award of prejudgment interest on a sum Pamela Fossen was directed to pay in a marriage dissolution action and the court's award of attorney fees incurred in a separate action to Allen Fossen, holding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence to support the calculation of attorney fees and costs.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) erred in awarding Allen attorney fees under terms of the parties' dissolution settlement agreement for defending Pam's third-party complaint against Allen in a separate action; (2) did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence to support the calculation of attorney fees and costs; and (3) erred in awarding prejudgment interest. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the amount of fees. View "In re Marriage of Fossen" on Justia Law

In this action brought by Lisa Warrington bringing claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order granting partial summary judgment to Great Falls Clinic, LLP and denied the Clinic's cross appeal, holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) did not err by granting partial summary judgment to the Clinic on Warrington's tort claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) did not commit reversible error by admitting evidence of the Clinic's liability and Warrington's emotional distress; (3) did not err by denying the Clinic's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding Warrington's damages; and (4) did not err by failing to rule and instruct the jury that the contract at issue was for a one-year term pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-602(1). View "Warrington v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to Child and remanded for the Montana Department of Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division (Department) to engage in reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with Child, holding that the Department failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and Child.On appeal, Mother argued that the Department violated her fundamental constitutional right to parent and abused its discretion by failing to provide her with the required reasonable efforts to reunify her with Child. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case, holding (1) the Department failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and Child; and (2) the district court erred in its determination that the Department established by clear and convincing evidence that the condition rendering Mother unfit to safely parent was not likely to change within a reasonable time. View "In re R.J.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Montana Water Court holding that Appellants failed to prove a long period of continuous nonuse and therefore failed to show Claimant or his predecessors' presumed intent to abandon the water rights, holding that the Water Court did not err.Specifically, the Court held (1) the Water Court did not err in concluding that Appellants failed to establish a continuous period of nonuse; (2) the failure to assert water rights through the water commissioner is not the equivalent of nonuse; (3) the Water Court did not commit clear error in not addressing the issue of partial abandonment; and (4) the Water Court did not err in concluding that the appropriate remedy for Appellants would be to file a dissatisfied water use complaint or pursue contempt proceedings. View "Klamert v. Iverson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motions to suppress, holding that the district court reached the right result even if for the wrong reason.Defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor DUI per se, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss. On appeal, Defendant argued that prior to the stop of his vehicle, there was no particularized suspicion to investigate him for any potential driving offense. The district court concluded that the police officer had particularized suspicion to investigate Defendant pursuant to an analysis under State v. Pratt, 951 P.2d 37 (Mont. 1997), and denied Defendant's motions to dismiss on that basis. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding (1) the officer's approach to Defendant was a routine police encounter that did not require particularized suspicion; and (2) the officer acquired particularized suspicion for further investigation upon Defendant's voluntary participation in his questioning and testing. View "State v. Questo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss or for new trial in the alternative, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the failure to discover newly discovered evidence sooner was the result of a lack of diligence in Defendant's part.Defendant was found guilty of felony partner or family member assault. At trial, Defendant asserted a justifiable use of force defense, arguing that M.M. struck him in the face, resulting in a black eye, and that his hand hit M.M.'s face when he pushed her away. After he was convicted, Defendant became aware of photographs in the possession of the State showing Defendant with discoloration under his right eye. Post-trial, Defendant filed his motion seeking dismissal of the charge against him for the State's Brady violation or, alternatively, a new trial based on the discovery of new evidence. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there was a reasonable probability that the evidence may have led to a different conclusion that but Defendant could have found the photographs with reasonable diligence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that Defendant acted with due diligence. View "State v. Chavis" on Justia Law