Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The district court erred in awarding visitation, pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-228, to a minor child’s paternal grandparents over the mother’s objection without determining whether the mother was a fit parent.The Supreme Court held that the district court in this case erroneously applied section 40-4-228 to this case involving grandparent visitation, where Mont. Code Ann. 40-9-102 is the controlling statute. When determining whether to order grandparent visitation, a court must make a determination as to whether the objecting parent is a fit parent and and then grant visitation over a fit parent’s objection only if the court finds that contact with the grandparent would be in the best interest of the child and that the presumption in favor of the parent’s wishes has been rebutted. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Schwarz v. Brockway" on Justia Law

The Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC) erred by ruling that a chiropractor may not make a medical determination regarding the claimant’s 1991 work-related injury in this case.In 1991, Claimant suffered injuries while working for Employer. Based on Chiropractor’s opinion, Claimant presented claims to Employer’s successor (Employer) for permanent partial disability and vocational rehabilitation benefits. Employer denied the claim on the ground that it was premised upon the medical determination of a chiropractor, rather than a physician, as required by the 1991 workers’ compensation statutes. Claimant filed a petition in the WCC. The WCC granted summary judgment to Employer, concluding that the 1991 statutes rendered Chiropractor’s opinion inadmissible. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) EBI/Orion Group v. Blythe, 931 P.2d 38 (Mont. 1997), controlled the outcome here; and (2) reversal was required because the WCC determined it was bound to follow Fleming v. International Paper Co., 194 P.3d 77 (Mont. 2008), as this Court’s most recent holding on the issue, but this Court’s overboard analysis in Fleming was in error. View "Murphy v. Westrock" on Justia Law

In this landlord-tenant dispute, Landlord complied with the requirements of the Montana Residential Tenants’ Security Deposits Act prior to deducting costs of cleaning from the vacating Tenant’s security deposit, and therefore, Tenant was entitled to a return of her security deposit.Tenant filed an action in justice court asserting that Landlord improperly withheld a portion of her security deposit that the Landlord spent to clean the vacated property, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 70-25-201(3). The justice court found that Landlord had violated the statute by failing to provide Tenant written notice of cleaning deficiencies or twenty-four hours to clean or fix any issues found during the inspection. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Landlord complied with the requirements of state law before deducing the cost of cleaning from Tenant’s security deposit. View "Hines v. Topher Realty LLC" on Justia Law

In this insurance coverage dispute, the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act should be dismissed.Plaintiff was involved in an accident while she was a passenger in a car driven by Kevin Gallivan. Peter Kirwan owned the vehicle, and Safeco Insurance Company insured Kirwan. Mid-Century Insurance Company insured Gallivan. Plaintiff sued Safeco and Mid-Century (collectively, Defendants), and the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Plaintiff subsequently brought this lawsuit against Defendants bringing claims seeking declaratory judgment and violations under the UTPA and alleging that Defendants used the collateral source statute to justify reduction in her damages notwithstanding that the collateral source statute was inapplicable. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) even if Defendants had a reasonable basis to apply the collateral source statute, the court failed to consider the plain language of the statute and whether it was applicable in Plaintiff’s case; and (2) Plaintiff sufficiently pled an independent cause of action under the UTPA to overcome Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss. View "Marshall v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois" on Justia Law

David Platt and Steven Held purchased a ranch together and formalized their arrangement by entering into an operating agreement. Later, Held, Platt, and Tim Welu decided to divide the property into three parts, with each party owning 2,000 acres. After the land sale, all the parties entered into a recorded agreement. Later, the relationships soured. When Held refused to grant an easement across his property to Platt, Platt initiated this lawsuit, alleging easement by express grant, prescription and implication, and praying for reformation of the contract due to mutual mistake and fraud. Welu intervened, seeking reformation and alleging that the recorded agreement did not express the intent of the parties regarding usage. The district court reformed the recorded agreement consistent with its determination that the parties intended to grant each other non-exclusive, non-transferrable licenses to use each other’s property. The court granted a written, express easement in favor of Welu and Platt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that Platt and Welu’s mutual mistake claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) considering extrinsic evidence to interpret and reform the parties’ contract. View "Platt v. Held" on Justia Law

In this appeal from an action dissolving a long-term marriage, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court distributing the marital assets upon dissolution and awarding Wife maintenance of $3,000 per month for a period of twenty-four months.On appeal, Husband challenged the award of maintenance and the inclusion of his investment accounts in the calculation of the marital estate. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court’s award of maintenance was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous; and (2) the district court’s equitable apportionment of the marital assets between the parties was supported by substantial evidence. View "In re Marriage of Hollamon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for entrapment as a matter of law.Defendant was charged with felony attempted prostitution. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the affirmative defense of entrapment. The district court denied the motion to dismiss as a matter of law, concluding that the record contained conflicting facts as to the origination of criminal intent and Defendant’s state of mind that made submitting the issue of entrapment to a jury proper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the affirmative defense of entrapment as a matter of law because conflicting facts existed as to whether Defendant had the requisite intent to commit the criminal act. View "State v. Lindquist" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Billings (City) and the Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority (MMIA) (collectively, Defendants) in this “Petition for Release of Documents” seeking documents related to a civil judgment MMIA paid on behalf of the City. Defendants released to Plaintiff all non-privileged documents and provided privilege logs describing those documents withheld on the ground of attorney-client or attorney-work-product privilege. In his petition, Plaintiff asked for the release of “everything related to” the civil judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the privileged documents were not subject to disclosure under the Montana Constitution. View "Nelson v. City of Billings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Billings (City) and the Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority (MMIA) (collectively, Defendants) in this “Petition for Release of Documents” seeking documents related to a civil judgment MMIA paid on behalf of the City. Defendants released to Plaintiff all non-privileged documents and provided privilege logs describing those documents withheld on the ground of attorney-client or attorney-work-product privilege. In his petition, Plaintiff asked for the release of “everything related to” the civil judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the privileged documents were not subject to disclosure under the Montana Constitution. View "Nelson v. City of Billings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s imposition of a condition on Defendant’s suspended sentence that Defendant pay the costs of his imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment “if financially able.”Defendant pleaded no contest to felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and was committed to the Department of Corrections for thirteen months, with an additional five years suspended. On appeal, Defendant challenged the imposition of the condition on his suspended sentence that he pay the costs of his imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment on the ground that the district court failed to determine his ability to pay these costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court made the proper determination of Defendant’s ability to pay the costs that the district court imposed, and Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-731(4)(b) required no more than what the district court did. View "State v. Daricek" on Justia Law