Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2010, Havre High School’s roof partially collapsed. Dick Anderson Construction, Inc. (Anderson) built the roof and Springer Group Architects (Springer) designed it. Hill County High School District No. A filed suit against against Springer and Anderson, alleging negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, deceit, and fraud. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Springer and Anderson, concluding that the statute of repose time-barred the School District’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) concluding that the statute of repose barred the School District’s claims; (2) ruling that the period of repose could not be tolled; and (3) awarding Spring attorney fees under the contract. View "Hill County High School District No. A v. Dick Anderson Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Lloyd filed a petition requesting that he be appointed guardian of M.D., his mother, due to her inability to manage her own affairs. Robert and Doug, Lloyd’s brothers, opposed Lloyd’s petition and asked the court to appoint Robert as guardian for M.D. The district court found M.D. to be an incapacitated person and in need of a full guardian. The court then exercised its discretion to determine that Lloyd was best qualified to serve as M.D.’s guardian. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s appointment of Lloyd as full guardian for M.D., holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing Lloyd, rather than Robert, as full guardian for M.D. View "In re Estate of M.D." on Justia Law

Shortly after giving birth to Child, Child’s mother signed an affidavit relinquishing her parental rights and consenting to Child’s adoption by Appellants. Mother was living in Havre and Child was living with Appellants in Illinois when Appellants filed a petition in the Montana Twelfth Judicial District Court in Hill County to formally terminate Mother’s parental rights and ultimately adopt Child. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of venue jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the adoption statute did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to consider Appellants’ petition to adopt Child and that Hill county was the proper venue to hear Appellants’ petition. View "In re Adoption of C.J.L." on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to four counts of felony Sexual Intercourse Without Consent and two counts of felony Sexual Assault. On appeal, petitioner challenges the district court's holding that all of petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were either procedurally barred or failed to state a claim. The court concluded that, although petitioner's suppression claims are barred by the procedural and substantive requirements for postconviction petitions, his claims regarding a writ of supervisory control and double jeopardy are not; under the state law when petitioner's trial and appellate counsel defended petitioner, neither provided ineffective assistance regarding the writ of supervisory control and double jeopardy issues; the district court correctly determined that petitioner failed to state a claim for relief in his petition and, as such, did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to hold an evidentiary hearing; and there are no considerations requiring petitioner be appointed counsel in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lacey v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of assault with a weapon and driving while license suspended or revoked. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred when it denied Defendant’s request that the State be ordered to produce a videotaped witness interview based on the claim that it was work product and not exculpatory; and (2) the district court erred in imposing an information technology user surcharge per count and not per user in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-317(a). Remanded to the district court to determine the appropriate sanctions for the State’s discovery abuse. View "State v. Pope" on Justia Law

Sheri Lee hired Morgan Pierce, PLLP to represent her in a bankruptcy proceeding. Morgan Pierce subsequently filed notice of an attorney’s lien against five pieces of Lee’s real property for legal services rendered. Joseph Mulroy and Lee then entered into an agreement for two of the pieces of property against which Morgan Pierce’s lien was recorded. Thereafter, Mulroy filed a petition for interpleader and declaratory relief asking the district court to determine the validity of Morgan Pierce’s attorney’s lien. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mulroy and awarded his costs and fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in holding that the agreement entered into between Morgan Pierce and Lee did not create a lien by consent. View "Mulroy v. Morgan Pierce, PLLP" on Justia Law

D.L.B., a seventy-five-year-old male suffering from mental illness, has been involuntarily committed to mental hospitals throughout his life. In 2015, the State filed a petition to extend D.L.B.’s commitment to the Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center for further evaluation and treatment. After an adjudicatory hearing, the district court orally extended D.L.B.’s commitment to the Nursing Care Center for a period of not more than six months. D.L.B. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings were sufficient to support a conclusion that recommitment to the Nursing Care Center was statutorily authorized. View "In re D.L.B." on Justia Law

Following a trial of the marriage dissolution proceeding between Wife and Husband, a standing master issued a report with a decree of dissolution. The master awarded Wife the family home, required Husband to pay Wife back temporary family support, required Husband to pay over $2,000 per month in child support, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees. The master also gave Wife primary residential custody of the children. Husband filed a motion for review of the standing master’s report. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Father’s objections lacked the specificity required by statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly found that Husband failed to specifically object to the master’s report as required by Mont. Code Ann. 3-5-126(2). View "In re Marriage of Taylor" on Justia Law

This appeal was part of an ongoing parenting and child support proceeding that has been before the district court for more than a decade. Mother and Father had a child together. In 2014, Mother and Father entered into the current parenting plan assigning primary physical custody of the child to Mother. The plan provided that child support shall be paid as ordered by the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED). After Mother petitioned CSED for recalculation of the child support obligation between the parties, CSED issued a final order eliminating Mother’s monthly support obligation and imposing a $679 monthly support obligation on Father. In 2015, Father moved for judicial modification of the CSED order, alleging that he lacked sufficient resources to pay $679 per month and requesting a reduction to $200 per month. The district court granted relief, concluding that Father’s change in circumstances gave justifiable reason to vary from the CSED guidelines. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while Father’s previous child support was correctly calculated under the CSED guidelines, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the CSED-determined obligation would be unjust or inappropriate. View "Myrick v. Skolrud" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony theft. Defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing, among several other arguments, that the prosecutor committed plain error requiring reversal by stripping Defendant of the presumption of innocence. Specifically, Defendant challenged the prosecutor’s comment during closing arguments that the presumption of innocence had been removed from Defendant. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments constituted prosecutorial misconduct and required reversal of Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Lawrence" on Justia Law