Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose among members of a family-owned limited liability company (LLC) established in 1994 with an original dissolution date of December 31, 2024. In 2015, one member, Seth, provided notice of his withdrawal. Shortly after, the remaining members—Horatio (the siblings’ father), Cameron, and Lindsay—held a meeting and, over Lindsay’s objection, voted by supermajority to convert the LLC to a perpetual-term entity. This action was later formalized through an amendment filed with the state. Horatio subsequently passed away, and Cameron became personal representative of his estate, controlling Horatio’s LLC interest.After these events, Lindsay, individually, on behalf of her minor children, and as a derivative plaintiff for the LLC, initiated an action in the Montana Sixth Judicial District Court. She sought a declaratory judgment enforcing the operating agreement’s (OA) dissolution provision and contended that the OA required unanimous written consent for amendment—rendering the 2015 supermajority vote ineffective. Cameron moved to dismiss some claims and later sought to join the LLC as a defendant. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, granted summary judgment to Cameron and the LLC on the validity of the amendment, ordered the LLC joined as a defendant, and required Lindsay to pay fees for a non-party hybrid witness’s deposition.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the OA provided two valid pathways to amendment—by unanimous written consent or by a 67% supermajority, and that the 2015 vote validly converted the LLC to a perpetual entity. The court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment and its joinder order. However, it reversed the order requiring Lindsay to pay the non-party witness’s fees, limiting compensation to the statutory witness fee unless otherwise agreed. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. View "Barbier v. Burns" on Justia Law

Two homeowners who purchased a residence in a Montana subdivision governed by covenants brought suit against their neighbors and the homeowners’ association after plans were approved for a new home to be built on an adjacent lot. The plaintiffs objected that the proposed construction would obstruct their mountain views. The subdivision’s covenants required that building placement “should take into consideration” neighboring dwellings, with “allowance for views and solar gains.” The association’s design review committee initially approved the plans, then rescinded approval after objections, requesting revised plans showing the plaintiffs’ residence. The defendants did not submit revised plans and ultimately received reinstated approval from the association’s board, which decided to let the parties resolve their dispute independently. The plaintiffs then filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, interpreting the covenants as not creating an enforceable obligation to protect views, and awarded attorney fees and costs to the defendants as prevailing parties.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the denial of preliminary relief should be separately addressed, whether summary judgment was properly granted, and whether attorney fees were correctly awarded. The Supreme Court held that the orders denying preliminary relief had merged into the final judgment and did not require separate review. The Court reversed summary judgment, concluding the covenants created a mandatory obligation to genuinely consider neighboring impacts, including views. The Court found material questions of fact remained as to whether the defendants and the association sufficiently considered the plaintiffs’ views, precluding summary judgment. The attorney fee award was also reversed, as no party was yet prevailing. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Waddell v. Studer" on Justia Law

The biological parents of a minor child, born in January 2018, have a contentious history involving allegations of abuse, criminal charges, and a ten-year order of protection against the father, Daniel Whitby, based on the mother's allegations of assault and rape. The mother, Reina Irene Cazabal-Boe, petitioned for a parenting plan that would exclude Whitby from all contact and visitation with the child, citing safety concerns. Whitby counter-petitioned, alleging drug use and abuse by Cazabal-Boe. A hearing was held in 2018, but Whitby did not attend, and the Standing Master adopted the mother’s proposed plan, giving her sole parenting rights and denying Whitby any contact.Following Whitby’s guilty pleas to various offenses against Cazabal-Boe, he twice sought to modify the parenting plan, alleging changed circumstances such as rehabilitation, sobriety, completion of anger management courses, and psychological evaluations. Both times, the Standing Master—first in 2019 and again in 2025—denied his motions without an evidentiary hearing, finding no change in circumstances affecting the child and awarded attorney fees against Whitby, labeling his repeated motions as vexatious. The Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court adopted these findings, denying a hearing and refusing to amend the plan.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case, applying abuse of discretion and clearly erroneous standards. It found that Whitby’s affidavits, if true, plausibly alleged a change in circumstances that required a hearing under Montana law. The Court held that the District Court erred by denying a hearing and by awarding attorney fees without proper findings. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s denial of a hearing, vacated the merits denial of amendment, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if modification of the parenting plan is warranted, also reversing the attorney fees award. View "In re Parenting of A.M.B." on Justia Law

C.M.B., a child born in 2018, was removed from her mother’s care following repeated reports and incidents of domestic violence, substance abuse, and unsafe conditions in her home. Law enforcement and Child and Family Services (CFS) intervened after a particularly concerning event in May 2023, finding the home unsanitary and the children exposed to potentially violent situations. Over several years, the family had been subject to multiple investigations for neglect and abuse. After removal, C.M.B. and her siblings were placed in foster or kinship care. The mother was unable to consistently participate in visits or comply fully with her treatment plan, partially due to her own legal and housing difficulties.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, adjudicated C.M.B. as a youth in need of care and granted temporary legal custody to the Department. The mother stipulated to the initial petition but later struggled to engage with required services. After extensive proceedings, including testimony from therapists and social workers, the district court found that the mother did not provide a safe or stable home, failed to make meaningful progress on her treatment plan, and that her conditions were unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The court terminated parental rights and granted permanent legal custody to the Department.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, the mother challenged both her standing to assert ineffective assistance of counsel claims on behalf of C.M.B. and the district court’s findings regarding her ability to change. The Supreme Court held that the mother lacked standing to assert C.M.B.’s statutory and constitutional rights to counsel, as she did not show a personal constitutional violation. Additionally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating parental rights, finding the decision supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination and permanent custody order. View "In re C.M.B." on Justia Law

A group called Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts submitted a proposed constitutional amendment, Ballot Issue 6 (BI-6), which would require all judicial elections in Montana to remain nonpartisan and mandate that any new courts created after the amendment’s effective date have judges elected on a nonpartisan basis. The initiative was submitted to the Secretary of State, who forwarded it for review. The Legislative Services Division completed its review, and the Attorney General then conducted a legal sufficiency review.The Attorney General of Montana determined that BI-6 was not legally sufficient under Montana law, specifically citing a violation of the separate-vote requirement in Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution. This provision requires that if more than one constitutional amendment is submitted at the same election, each must be prepared and distinguished so it can be voted on separately. The Attorney General concluded that BI-6 contained two distinct substantive changes: one regarding nonpartisan judicial elections and another regarding the method of selecting judges for newly created courts. Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts challenged this determination in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, seeking a declaratory judgment that BI-6 was legally sufficient.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether BI-6 violated the separate-vote requirement. The Court held that BI-6 proposed two substantive changes that were not closely related: requiring all judicial elections to be nonpartisan and mandating that judges in new courts be elected rather than appointed. The Court found that combining these changes in a single measure would prevent voters from expressing separate preferences and could result in “logrolling.” Therefore, the Court affirmed the Attorney General’s determination and denied the petitioner’s request, holding that BI-6 was not legally sufficient. View "Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

A group called Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts (MNC) submitted a proposed constitutional initiative, CI-132, which would add a section to the Montana Constitution stating that judicial elections shall remain nonpartisan. MNC also submitted a proposed ballot statement: “CI-132 amends the Montana Constitution to require that judicial elections remain nonpartisan.” After the initiative and statement were submitted to the Secretary of State and reviewed by the Legislative Services Division, the Montana Attorney General conducted a legal sufficiency review. The Attorney General found the initiative legally sufficient but rejected MNC’s proposed statement, arguing it did not accurately reflect the current constitutional text and failed to define “nonpartisan.” The Attorney General then issued a revised statement, which MNC challenged as misleading and prejudicial.MNC filed an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General’s revised statement violated statutory requirements and asking the Court to certify its own proposed statement. The Attorney General responded, defending his revised statement and criticizing MNC’s version for not reflecting the constitutional status quo and lacking a definition of “nonpartisan.”The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General’s revised statement was misleading because it implied CI-132 would change the status quo, when in fact judicial elections in Montana are already nonpartisan by statute. The Court also found that a definition of “nonpartisan” was unnecessary, given voters’ familiarity with the term and the absence of a statutory definition. The Court concluded that MNC’s proposed statement was a true and impartial explanation of the initiative in plain language, meeting statutory requirements. The Court certified MNC’s statement to the Secretary of State and granted the petition for declaratory judgment. View "Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

Joseph Dwayne Matt was a passenger in Levi Gadaire’s vehicle when it was stopped by law enforcement for erratic driving. Both Matt and Gadaire were probationers, and Matt was flagged as an absconder with an active warrant for his arrest. During the stop, Gadaire admitted to recent methamphetamine use, which led to a search of the vehicle. Officers discovered multiple bags of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in the center console. Matt was charged with criminal possession of a dangerous drug with intent to distribute by accountability, and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia.The case proceeded to trial in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Broadwater County. The State’s evidence included testimony from the reporting driver, law enforcement officers, body cam footage, surveillance video, and phone records. Gadaire, who had given multiple inconsistent statements during the investigation, testified that Matt was present during the drug pick-up but later recanted aspects of his testimony. At the close of the State’s case, Matt moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State’s evidence was insufficient because it relied on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. The District Court denied the motion, and the jury found Matt guilty of criminal possession of a dangerous drug, but not guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in denying Matt’s motion for a directed verdict due to insufficient corroborating evidence. The Supreme Court held that the State failed to provide independent evidence connecting Matt to the crime, apart from Gadaire’s testimony. Mere presence in the vehicle did not meet the statutory requirement for corroboration. The Supreme Court reversed Matt’s conviction, remanded the case, and ordered the District Court to vacate the judgment and dismiss the charges. View "State v. Matt" on Justia Law

A couple who had lived together in Montana since the mid-1990s had their relationship recognized as a common law marriage. After separating in 2013, the wife petitioned for divorce in 2014. During the dissolution proceedings, both parties exchanged financial information but did not submit final declarations of disclosure as required by Montana law. Following a bench trial, the District Court issued a Final Decree in December 2018, dissolving the marriage, distributing the marital estate, and ordering the husband to pay spousal and child support, as well as the mortgage on the marital home awarded to the wife. Neither party objected at the time to the lack of final disclosure statements.Subsequent litigation focused on the husband’s financial obligations under the Final Decree. The husband sought to modify or suspend his support obligations, leading to further discovery disputes and contempt proceedings when he failed to make required payments. The District Court repeatedly enforced the Final Decree, denied the husband’s motions to modify, and awarded attorney fees to the wife. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed these orders in a prior appeal. In December 2023, the husband, for the first time, moved to set aside the Final Decree on the basis that final disclosure statements had not been exchanged. The District Court denied this motion as untimely and because the statutory basis for relief did not apply.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s denial of the husband’s motion to set aside the Final Decree and his request for a new trial. The Court held that Montana law only authorizes setting aside a judgment if a party committed perjury in a final disclosure statement, which was not possible here since no such statements were exchanged. The Court also awarded the wife her attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal, remanding to the District Court to determine the reasonable amount. View "Marriage of: Kelly and Camp" on Justia Law

Corbin Damjanovich died in February 2024, leaving two adult children, Nicolette and Derek. After his death, Corbin’s sister, Tracy Barlow, and cousin, Carl Openshaw, petitioned for informal appointment as co-personal representatives of his estate in Yellowstone County, Montana. Subsequently, Nicolette and Derek discovered a handwritten, signed document dated December 9, 2015, which appeared to be Corbin’s will. Barlow and Openshaw then sought formal probate of this document, asserting it was a valid holographic will that named Barlow as executor and sole devisee, and expressed Corbin’s wish to establish a trust. The document gave Barlow discretion over the disbursement of funds and assets. The parties stipulated to the authenticity of the handwriting and signature, and that Corbin had capacity. Nicolette objected, arguing the document lacked testamentary intent and did not create a trust or mechanism for distributing the estate, so the estate should pass by intestacy.The Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court admitted the 2015 document to probate as a valid holographic will, found it created a power of appointment in Barlow, confirmed her as personal representative, and ended Openshaw’s co-appointment. Nicolette appealed, disputing the legal effect of the 2015 writing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that the 2015 document was a valid holographic will only for the limited purpose of appointing Barlow as personal representative. The court reversed the lower court’s conclusion that the document created a power of appointment or trust, finding it did not effectively dispose of Corbin’s estate. As a result, the undisposed portion of the estate must pass by intestacy to Corbin’s descendants. The case was remanded for entry of an order of partial intestacy and further administration consistent with Montana’s intestate succession laws. View "In re Estate of Damjanovich" on Justia Law

Three men, including Andre Anthony, entered a Family Dollar Store in Hardin, Montana, and over about ten minutes, one of the men fraudulently completed three transactions at the computerized cash register by pressing the “cash received” button without providing payment. Surveillance video showed Anthony standing near the register, at times distracting the store attendant, while the fraudulent transactions occurred. The men left with three gift cards and a bottle of body wash, totaling $1,512.35. Law enforcement later detained the men and found receipts and merchandise matching the transactions in their vehicle. The store attendant misidentified Anthony as the man who pressed the register button, but Anthony was arrested and charged.Initially, Anthony was charged in Hardin City Court with shoplifting, but the charges were amended to unlawful use of a computer by accountability. After posting bail, Anthony returned to Michigan and requested to appear at hearings by video, which was sometimes permitted. At trial, Anthony appeared by video, but the court denied his request to testify by video after the prosecution rested. The City Court found Anthony guilty on all three counts. On appeal, the District Court for the Twenty-Second Judicial District affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the denial of Anthony’s request to testify by video.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that the evidence was sufficient to support Anthony’s convictions for unlawful use of a computer by accountability, as his actions and presence supported a finding that he aided or abetted the offenses. However, the Supreme Court found that the City Court abused its discretion by allowing Anthony to appear by video for trial but then denying his request to testify by video without clear explanation. The Supreme Court reversed Anthony’s convictions and remanded for a new trial on all counts. View "City of Hardin v. Anthony" on Justia Law