Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Facing more than $40,000 in unsecured debt that she owed to Discover Bank and other banks, Susan Ossello enrolled in a debt reduction program and signed a contract with Global Client Solutions. Ossello subsequently stopped making payments on her credit card debt, and Discover Bank brought a collection action against her. Ossello filed a third-party complaint against Global, alleging that Global used deceptive and fraudulent representations to solicit her participation in an illegal debt settlement plan. Global filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The district court concluded that the arbitration clause in Global’s contract was unconscionable and not unenforceable and therefore denied Global’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) reserving to itself the determination of arbitrability, and (2) declaring that the arbitration provision was unconscionable and therefore not enforceable against Ossello. View "Discover Bank v. Ossello" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of incest, sexual assault, and sexual intercourse without consent against a child age sixteen or younger, sexual intercourse without consent against a child age twelve or younger, and sexual assault against a child age sixteen or younger. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly excluded evidence that three of the four victims suffered prior sexual abuse by others; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that certain statements made by the prosecutor rose to a level that triggered the threshold for undertaking plain error review. View "State v. Awbery" on Justia Law

The dispute in this case centered on the ownership of subsurface mineral rights to coal-rich land located in Musselshell County. Plaintiffs filed this action against Musselshell County to quiet title to the property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and awarded costs but not attorney fees. Plaintiffs appealed, and the County cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that the pertinent statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ quiet title action; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the County its attorney fees. View "Bergum v. Musselshell County" on Justia Law

The Wayne S. Hansen Trust acquired tax deeds to three tracts of real property located in Powell County, which were previously owned by Douglas Johnson. The Trust filed three quiet title actions for the respective properties. John responded by filing his own quiet title actions on the properties, alleging that both the County and the Trust had failed to comply with several statutes. The district court granted summary judgment to Johnson and declared the tax deeds void. The Trust filed a request for relief from the judgment and a motion to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial. The district court partially granted the Trusts’ motions, concluding that the judgment failed to address the issues of taxes accrued or paid by either party during the pendency of the proceedings. The district court then issued an order addressing the calculation of the final redemption amount, ruling that no additional redemption amount was due or owing to the Trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the host of errors in the statutory procedure in this case required voiding of the deeds; and (2) the district court did not err in determining the final redemption amount due to the Trust as purchaser of the tax deed. View "Johnson v. Wayne S. Hansen Trust" on Justia Law

Fellows filed the underlying complaint challenging the Water Commissioner’s administration of water under the Perry v. Beattie decree. The district court dismissed Fellows’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that Fellows’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim. Fellows then requested the district court to certify a question to the Water Court. The district court granted the request. The Water Court entered a final order that tabulated the water rights necessary to address Fellows’s underlying complaint. By the time of its certification order, the water claims had been adjudicated in a temporary preliminary decree, and therefore, the Water Court ordered that the matter be closed and returned to the district court. The Perry Defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the Water Court’s judgment. The Water Court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Water Court correctly followed the law of the case; (2) Fellows’s petition for certification was proper; and (3) the Water Court did not err in defining the scope of the controversy, in determining the purpose of the tabulation, and in tabulating the applicable rights involved in the controversy. Remanded. View "Fellows v. Saylor" on Justia Law

The district court granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of certain provisions of the 2011 Montana Marijuana Act. The State appealed the grant of the injunction, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed the district court’s refusal to enjoin other provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in determining that the Act’s provision requiring the Department of Public Health and Human Services to notify the Board of Medical Examiners of any physician who certifies twenty-five or more patients in a year for medical marijuana fails rational review; (2) did not err in determining that the Act’s commercial prohibitions fail rational basis review; (3) erred in applying strict scrutiny review to the Act’s provision prohibiting advertising by providers of medical marijuana; (4) did not err in determining that the Act’s provision prohibiting probationers from becoming registered cardholders for medical marijuana use withstands a facial challenge under rational basis scrutiny; and (5) did not err in determining that the Act’s provision allowing warrantless inspections of medical marijuana providers’ businesses comports with constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches. View "Mont. Cannabis Indus. Ass’n v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and sexual assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to terms of imprisonment on each of the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding Defendant’s expert witness from testifying at trial, as Defendant was qualified in both education and experience to provide the testimony sought by Defendant; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by mechanistically applying the Rape Shield Law to exclude evidence that Defendant offered at trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Colburn" on Justia Law

After a warranted search of Defendant’s home, law enforcement officers seized sixty-seven live marijuana plants and numerous miscellaneous paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his residence, arguing that the application for the warrant lacked sufficient facts to establish probable cause that his home contained drugs or drug-related evidence. The district court denied Defendant’s combined motion to suppress and dismiss. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession with intent to distribute dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss, holding that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding there was a probability of criminal activity. View "State v. Kant" on Justia Law

In 2001, Kurt Heigis executed and a notary notarized a quitclaim deed purportedly conveying certain real property to Frances Emmert. Heigis personally delivered the deed to Emmert at her home and told her not to record it until “something happened to him.” In 2014, Heigis was murdered. Emmert recorded the deed one month later. Barbara Sparks, Heigis’ daughter, acting as personal representative of his state, initiated an action against Emmert to quiet title to the property, arguing that the deed was inoperative because it was never delivered. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Emmert, concluding that the deed was legally delivered. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an issue of material fact, whether the deed was legally delivered, existed, thus precluding summary judgment in favor of either party. View "Sparks v. Emmert" on Justia Law

J.H. was the minor child of Mother and Father. The district court granted the petition of the Department of Public Health and Human Service for temporary legal custody of J.H. The Department later filed a permanency plan that did not include the option of placing J.H. with Father. Thereafter, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights. The Department later filed a petition for long-term custody of J.H. and a second permanency plan that sought placement of J.H. with J.H.’s maternal great aunt under a guardianship. The district court granted the Department’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that the Department engaged in reasonable efforts to reunify J.H. with Father; and (2) finding that J.H.’s best interest were served by living with his great maternal aunt, and not with Father. View "In re J.H." on Justia Law