Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kevin and Jeannine Extreme appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Mineral County's order enjoining them from violating restrictive covenants applicable to their property in the Sloway Flats Minor Subdivision. The District Court also ordered them to remedy their violations and awarded attorney fees to Sloway Cabin, LLC (Sloway).The District Court found that the covenants were enforceable and that the Extremes had violated them by operating a commercial towing company, diesel repair shop, and impound lot on their property, among other activities. The court enjoined the Extremes from further violations and ordered them to remedy their current violations. The court also awarded attorney fees to Sloway.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the Subdivision’s covenants were clear and unambiguous, and therefore enforceable. The court rejected the Extremes' arguments that the covenants were never meant to be enforced and that their enforcement was barred by the doctrines of waiver and laches. The court found that the Extremes had been repeatedly informed about the covenants and that Sloway had promptly acted to enforce them upon noticing violations. The court also found that the Extremes' arguments regarding the use of surrounding properties were irrelevant as those properties were not subject to the Subdivision’s covenants.The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that the District Court did not manifestly abuse its discretion by enjoining the Extremes from violating the covenants and that the award of attorney fees to Sloway was proper under the circumstances. The court found that the equities supported an award of attorney fees and that the tangible parameters test was met. View "Sloway Cabin v. Extreme" on Justia Law

Danielle Wood was charged with deliberate homicide for the death of Matthew LaFriniere, based on two theories: direct liability and accountability. During her trial, the jury was instructed on both theories, but the verdict form did not require the jury to specify which theory they based their decision on. Wood was found guilty, and she appealed, arguing that the accountability theory should not have been submitted to the jury due to insufficient evidence. The Montana Supreme Court agreed and reversed her conviction, remanding the case for a new trial.Upon remand, Wood moved to dismiss the case, claiming that a retrial would violate her double jeopardy rights. The Twentieth Judicial District Court denied her motion, reasoning that the Montana Supreme Court had remanded the case for a new trial, not dismissal, and that retrial did not constitute double jeopardy. Wood then sought a writ of supervisory control from the Montana Supreme Court to reverse the District Court's decision.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that double jeopardy did not bar a retrial for deliberate homicide under the direct liability theory. The Court clarified that its previous reversal was based on the lack of evidence for the accountability theory, not the direct liability theory. Therefore, retrying Wood solely on the direct liability theory did not violate her double jeopardy rights. The Court granted Wood's petition for supervisory control but affirmed the District Court's order denying her motion to dismiss, allowing the retrial to proceed on the direct liability theory. View "Wood v. 20th Jud. District Court" on Justia Law

R&R Mountain Escapes, LLC ("R&R") purchased a property in a subdivision near Whitefish, Montana, and began using it for short-term rentals through a vacation rental company. The neighbors, Rodney and Heather Brandt, Marshall and Neva Fladager, and Larry and Rena Lautaret, filed a lawsuit claiming that R&R's short-term rentals violated the subdivision's restrictive covenants, which were designed to maintain the area for "country residential living" and prohibited commercial use. The neighbors sought to enjoin R&R's short-term rentals and requested attorney fees.The Eleventh Judicial District Court in Flathead County granted summary judgment in favor of the neighbors, holding that the restrictive covenants prohibited R&R's short-term rentals. However, the court denied the neighbors' request for attorney fees, reasoning that the covenants were ambiguous and it would not be just to penalize R&R with an award of fees. R&R appealed the decision barring short-term rentals, and the neighbors cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the restrictive covenants, when considered as a whole, unambiguously prohibited short-term rentals. The covenants were intended to promote "country residential living" and explicitly prohibited any commercial use, including short-term rentals that created nuisances for other homeowners. The court also affirmed the District Court's denial of attorney fees, concluding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it would be unfair to penalize a party for litigating potentially ambiguous covenants. View "Brandt v. R&R Mountain Escapes, LLC" on Justia Law

James Marion Del Duca filed a complaint against his ex-wife, Aria Skydancer, alleging Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). The Eighteenth Judicial District Court for Gallatin County dismissed his claim with prejudice on Skydancer’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Del Duca appealed the dismissal, raising four issues: the court's error in concluding he failed to state a claim, the dismissal with prejudice, the denial of his request to amend his complaint, and the court's failure to explain its ruling.The District Court dismissed Del Duca's complaint without providing a detailed explanation for its decision. The court's order simply stated that the motion to dismiss was granted and the request for attorney fees was denied. Del Duca's motion to amend his complaint was also denied without explanation. Del Duca argued that the court erred by not specifying the grounds for its ruling, as required by Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(3).The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and found that the District Court failed to provide sufficient particularity in its order to apprise the parties and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court's failure to explain its decision left the parties and the appellate court to speculate about the reasons for the dismissal and the denial of the motion to amend. The Supreme Court vacated the District Court's order and remanded the case with instructions for the District Court to provide an order that specifies the grounds for its rulings, consistent with Rule 52(a)(3). The District Court must clarify whether it converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and provide reasons for dismissing Del Duca's claims and denying his motion to amend the complaint. View "Del Duca v. Skydancer" on Justia Law

Ian Elliot, Cindy Elliot, and their mother, Ada Elliot, were partners in StarFire, a limited partnership owning property in Gallatin County. Cindy managed StarFire and sought to remove Ian as a general partner. Ian was appointed Ada’s guardian, and Joyce Wuertz was appointed as Ada’s conservator. Ian sued Cindy for misappropriation of funds and sought to remove Wuertz as conservator, but his motions were denied. Ada’s will divided her estate equally between Ian and Cindy, but due to their strained relationship, a special administrator was appointed instead of Ian. Ian’s subsequent motions to disqualify the special administrator were also denied.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, appointed Andrew Billstein as the special administrator of Ian’s estate. The Objectors (Jenny Jing, Alice Carpenter, and Mike Bolenbaugh) filed an untimely appeal against this appointment, which was declined. The Objectors also opposed the settlement agreements proposed by the Special Administrator, which aimed to resolve ongoing litigation involving Ian’s estate. The District Court approved the settlements, finding them reasonable under the Pallister factors, and denied the Objectors’ motion for relief under M. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decisions. The court held that the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction to approve the settlement agreements and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The court found that the settlements were reasonable, considering the strength of the cases, the risk and expense of further litigation, and the views of experienced counsel. The court also upheld the District Court’s denial of the Objectors’ post-judgment relief motions. View "In re Estate of Elliot" on Justia Law

Ryan Patrick Donahue, a DEA agent, met Marcus Joshlin at a bar in Bozeman on November 21, 2021. After a night of drinking, Donahue suspected Joshlin had drugs in his bag and demanded to see it while brandishing a firearm. Finding no drugs, they continued to another bar where Donahue's aggressive behavior led to an altercation. Donahue shoved a gun into Joshlin's neck, leading to his disarmament and arrest. Donahue was charged with Assault with a Weapon and Carrying a Concealed Weapon While Under Influence. He claimed self-defense, asserting Joshlin threatened him.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court excluded evidence of Joshlin's post-incident statements about being a fighter and his unresolved criminal case. The court allowed some evidence of Joshlin's untruthfulness but denied Donahue's motion for a new trial, finding substantial compliance with jury summons procedures. The jury found Donahue guilty on both counts, and the court deferred his sentence for three years on the assault charge and issued a suspended six-month sentence for the concealed weapon charge.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not err in excluding Joshlin's post-incident statements as they were not known to Donahue at the time and thus irrelevant to his self-defense claim. The court also found that Donahue failed to preserve his argument regarding the unresolved criminal case for appeal. Lastly, the court affirmed the District Court's denial of a new trial, concluding that any technical violations in the jury summons process did not affect the randomness or objectivity of the jury selection. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decisions. View "State v. Donahue" on Justia Law

Steven Corry Stephenson, as trustee of the Steven Corry Stephenson Trust, owns Lot 11, and Lone Peak Preserve, LLC owns Lot 13, both near Big Sky, Montana. The properties were created by the same certificate of survey (COS 1754) and have a road (Skywood Road) with a 60-foot easement depicted. A 1993 affidavit of dedication granted this easement for ingress, egress, and utilities for all owners within COS 1754. In 2004, Phillip Smith conveyed Lot 13 to Lone Peak with a 30-foot easement for access and utilities across Lot 11. In 2010, Smith conveyed Lot 11 to Stephenson, referencing prior conveyances and easements. In 2013, Stephenson executed an access and utility easement agreement, incorporating the 30-foot easement described in the Smith-Lone Peak Deed.In December 2021, Stephenson sued Lone Peak for trespass and declaratory judgment, alleging that Lone Peak's utilities and proposed driveway were outside the easement area. Lone Peak counterclaimed for interference with easements, trespass, and declaratory judgment. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Between 2022 and 2023, Stephenson placed landscape boulders, a log, and a speed bump near Lone Peak's access, leading Lone Peak to file for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in July 2023.The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, granted Lone Peak's request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the 30-foot easement and cul-de-sac easement were valid and that Stephenson's actions unreasonably interfered with these easements. The court ordered Stephenson to remove the obstructions and refrain from further interference.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's order, finding no manifest abuse of discretion. The court held that Lone Peak demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tipped in its favor, and that the injunction was in the public interest. View "Stephenson v. Lone Peak" on Justia Law

Sidney and Julian Helvik, who have lived on their family ranch since 1947, sold a portion of their ranch to Wesley and Karen Tuscano in 2018. In 2020, the Helviks agreed to sell the remainder of the ranch to the Tuscanos under an agreement that included a promissory note and provisions for the Tuscanos to assist the elderly Helviks with end-of-life issues. The Helviks signed a quitclaim deed, but the Tuscanos later had them sign a gift deed, which transferred the ranch without consideration. The Tuscanos never made any payments under the agreement and used the gift deed to obtain a mortgage on the ranch.The Helviks filed a complaint in the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sweet Grass County, seeking to void the agreement and the gift deed, alleging undue influence and fraud. The Tuscanos counterclaimed and filed a third-party complaint against Jacqueline Conner, alleging tortious interference and abuse of process. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Conner on the tortious interference claim and excluded evidence of an Adult Protective Services investigation and an oral agreement to transfer land.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court's decision to rescind the agreement based on its equitable powers, noting the unique fiduciary duty in grantor-support agreements. The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of the APS investigation and the oral agreement. The court also held that the Tuscanos waived their argument regarding jury instructions on undue influence by not objecting at trial. The summary judgment in favor of Conner was upheld due to the lack of evidence of damages. The court declined to award attorney fees to Conner under M. R. App. P. 19(5). The District Court's orders and judgments were affirmed. View "Helvik v. Tuscano" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who responded to an online advertisement posted by an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a woman offering sexual services, including access to two fictitious underage girls, one purportedly 12 years old. The defendant agreed to meet at a hotel to engage in sexual conduct with the supposed minors and was arrested upon arrival. He was charged with two counts of Sexual Abuse of Children under Montana law, with enhanced penalties based on the alleged ages of the victims.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, denied the defendant’s motion to strike the mandatory sentencing enhancements, which imposed a 25-year parole restriction for offenses involving victims 12 years old or younger. The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of Attempted Sexual Abuse of Children, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion regarding the sentencing enhancement. The court imposed the State’s recommended sentence, including the mandatory enhancement, and dismissed the second count.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement for sexual child abuse applies when the “victim” is a fictitious child created by law enforcement in a sting operation. The court held that the statutory language requiring enhanced penalties based on the age of “the victim” refers to actual, specified child victims, not to fictional or simulated victims. The court concluded that the Legislature’s use of different language in the statute—distinguishing between “a child” in defining the offense and “the victim” in penalty enhancements—demonstrates an intent to limit enhanced penalties to cases involving real children. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s imposition of the mandatory enhancement and remanded for resentencing under the general penalty provision. View "State v. Schultz" on Justia Law

Douglas Baertsch was convicted in January 2023 by the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, for burglary with disorderly conduct as the predicate offense, partner or family member assault (PFMA), and criminal mischief. The incident occurred on May 21, 2020, when Baertsch and his girlfriend, K.W., argued after a night out. The argument escalated at K.W.'s home, leading to Baertsch forcibly taking K.W.'s phone and later kicking in her front door to retrieve his wallet. Inside the house, Baertsch called K.W. derogatory names before leaving.The District Court jury found Baertsch guilty of criminal mischief for breaking the door, PFMA for causing K.W. reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, and burglary with disorderly conduct for using abusive language inside the house. The court sentenced him to two consecutive five-year suspended prison terms for PFMA and burglary, and six months jail-time (all but 60 days suspended) for criminal mischief. Additionally, the court imposed a seven-year restriction on Baertsch’s ability to seek early termination of his sentence.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the burglary conviction with disorderly conduct as the predicate offense. The court found that the abusive language used by Baertsch inside K.W.'s private home did not disturb the public peace, a necessary element for disorderly conduct under the statute. Consequently, the court vacated the burglary conviction. Additionally, the court ruled that the District Court's seven-year restriction on Baertsch’s right to seek early termination of his sentence was illegal, as it exceeded statutory authorization. The case was remanded to the District Court to strike the illegal sentencing condition. View "State v. Baertsch" on Justia Law