Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1999, Randall Simms was injured while on the job. Thereafter, Simms became totally disabled and, since 2006, had been receiving total disability benefits. Dr. Michael Schabacker was Simms’ workers’ compensation doctor from 2004 through 2007. In 2010, Simms filed a complaint against Schabacker and his employer, alleging that Schabacker had unlawfully disseminated his private, confidential healthcare information to a law enforcement officer without Simms' permission. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Schabacker. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding (1) Schabacker was statutorily authorized to release relevant healthcare information regarding Simms to the workers’ compensation insurer, and (2) Schabacker did not knowingly assist a law enforcement agency when he discussed Simms’ medical condition with the workers’ compensation insurer. View "Simms v. Schabacker" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of incest, one count of solicitation, and one count of sexual abuse of children. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his discovery requests for information contained in the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) files of his two victims without first conducting an in camera review. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and ordered the case remanded to the district court to conduct an in camera review of the victims’ DPHHS files, holding that Defendant’s request was sufficient to invoke his right to potentially exculpatory information in the DPHHS files, and once he invoked that right, it was the trial court’s duty to conduct an in camera review to ascertain whether there was any exculpatory evidence in the files. View "State v. Johnston" on Justia Law

Mother filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father, who was incarcerated. Mother’s petition relied on Father’s alleged abandonment of the parties’ child and failure to support the child. After Father, who was unrepresented, was served he attempted to comply with the summons but failed to answer the petition in a timely manner. The district court entered a default judgment terminating Father’s parental rights based solely on his failure to answer the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court incorrectly applied the law when it terminated Father’s parental rights without an accompanying petition for adoption and by a default judgment with no hearing, no evidence, and no findings. View "Bergsing v. Cardona" on Justia Law

In 2011, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with Wife. In 2014, the district court entered a final decree of dissolution and entered a final parenting plan for the parties’ three minor children. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the children’s best interest to reside primarily with Mother and in awarding primary custody of the children to Mother; but (2) the district court abused its discretion with regard to Father’s child support obligation. Remanded for redetermination of child support or for entry of findings explaining why clear and convincing evidence supported any departure from the uniform child support guidelines adopted by the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services. View "In re Marriage of Pesanti" on Justia Law

In 2006, Robert and Teresa James brought a lot in a rural subdivision. At the time of the purchase, Chicago Title Insurance Company issued a title insurance policy that insured against loss or damage by reason of “lack of right of access to and from the land.” In 2013, the Jameses sued Chicago Title, contending that the title insurance policy required Chicago Title to provide them “legal” access to their lot. The district court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that the Jameses failed to establish that the title insurance policy entitled them to “legal access” to their lot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted judgment to Chicago Title on the Jameses’ claim, under the title insurance policy, that they lacked a right of access to their real property, as the language of the policy insured against loss from not having “a right” of access, and the Jameses clearly had a right of access when they bought the lot. View "James v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After Mother and Father, the parents of two children, divorced, Father married Stepmother, and the two children resided with Father and Stepmother. Stepmother filed petitions for adoption of the children and an order terminating Mother’s parental rights. Thereafter, the district court entered a decree of adoption in Stepmother’s favor and terminated Mother’s parental rights to the children, finding that Mother had willfully abandoned the children and had not supported them. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Montana’s right to equal protection requires that counsel be appointed for indigent parents in termination proceedings brought under the Adoption Act; and (2) on remand, the district court was directed to appoint counsel for Mother if it determined that she was financially eligible. View "In re Adoption of A.W.S." on Justia Law

Centennial Contracting and Development, LLC (Centennial) and Leonard Investments, LLC (Leonard) obtained a judgment against Don and Susan Salminen. Morrison & Frampton law firm (Frampton) represented Centennial and Leonard in the litigation. The district court subsequently issued a writ of execution and garnishment. Frampton subsequently seized virtually everything in the Salminens house. Thereafter, the district court held that all of the property seized from the Salminens’ home was exempt from execution and must be returned. The Salminens commenced this action against Frampton, Centennial, and Leonard, asserting claims for violation of rights secured by Article II of the Montana Constitution, abuse of legal process, conversion, and wrongful levy. The district court granted Frampton’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and then granted judgment on the pleadings to Centennial and Leonard on the remaining claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in determining that the Salminens failed to state a claim for conversion as a matter of law, abuse of process and wrongful levy at this stage in the process. Remanded. View "Salminen v. Morrison & Frampton, PLLP" on Justia Law

In 2007, the district court granted dissolution of the marriage of Husband and Wife. Multiple appeals and other related cases followed. In 2013, the district court issued an amended judgment in which it revised downward from an earlier judgment the amount of money Husband owed Wife and held that Wife had the right to have the judgment entered as a foreign judgment in Idaho where Husband retained property. Husband appealed this amended judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arguments Husband raised on appeal were either not properly before the Court. The Court also granted Wife’s request that Husband be sanctioned as a vexatious litigant, as sanctions were necessary to curb further abusive litigant by Husband. View "In re Marriage of Guill" on Justia Law

After an adjudicatory hearing, the district court granted the State’s petition for the involuntary commitment of S.L., concluding that S.L. suffered from a mental disorder and citing evidence establishing that S.L. posed an imminent threat to herself and that her mental condition would deteriorate if left untreated. The court determined that Montana State Hospital (MSH) was the least restrictive treatment alternative. The court did not hold a separate disposition hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s decision to commit S.L. to MSH was not clearly erroneous; and (2) S.L. failed to demonstrate that the court’s decision not to hold a stand-alone disposition hearing deprived her of her due process rights. View "In re S.L." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. During trial, the State presented no evidence that Defendant drove while under the influence but rather presented evidence intended to prove Defendant was in “actual physical control” of his truck when a police officer found him passed out at the wheel. Defendant appealed, arguing that because his vehicle was disabled in such a way that he could not move it, he could not be in actual physical control of his vehicle for purposes of the DUI statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court improperly instructed the jury: “It does not matter that the vehicle is incapable of movement”; and (2) the instruction prejudicially affected Defendant’s substantial rights by preventing the jury from considering a valid defense. View "State v. Sommers" on Justia Law