Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State charged Michael Hass with three offenses, one of which was a DUI. The Stated alleged that Hass had three prior DUI convictions, making the DUI a felony. Hass filed a motion challenging the validity of one of his prior DUI convictions, arguing that his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process were violated when the trial judge in that case allowed Hass's counsel to withdraw on the day of trial and then proceeded to try and convict Hass in absentia. In the instant case, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hass pleaded guilty to fourth-offense DUI, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision denying Hass's motion challenging the validity of his earlier DUI conviction and vacated the felony DUI sentence imposed by the district court, holding that the prior DUI conviction was constitutionally infirm and could not be used for sentence enhancement purposes. Remanded with instructions to resentence Hass for misdemeanor DUI. View "State v. Hass" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife's marriage was dissolved by a decree that included a settlement agreement and parenting plan. The agreement provided that the parties would share joint parenting of the children but that Wife would be the primary residential parent. The agreement was later amended to provide for alternating custody between Wife and Husband on a weekly basis. Husband subsequently filed a motion to modify child support, alleging that there had been a substantial and continuing change of circumstances as to make the existing terms unconscionable. The district court (1) granted Husband's motion, (2) denied Wife's motion to amend the parenting plan, and (3) ordered that Wife pay Husband's attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) granting Husband's motion to modify child support where the court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and its determination that the changes in circumstances in this case met the statutory requirements; (2) awarding Husband attorney's fees where the parties' agreement specifically provided for an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in subsequent proceedings; and (3) determining the amount and reasonableness of the attorney's fees awarded. View "In re Marriage of Damschen" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA) pursuant to their divorce in which Wife transferred all of her interest in two corporations the parties owned to Husband in exchange for Husband's payment to Wife of $250,000. The parties subsequently agreed that Wife would assume managerial and operational control of the businesses. The district court ordered Husband to provide Wife with access to the businesses' accounts and financial information and to return possession of the business records. Because of Husband's noncompliance with the court order, Wife ultimately was forced to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The district court subsequently (1) found Husband to be in contempt, (2) awarded Wife sole possession of one of the businesses, (3) ordered Husband to pay Wife the receiver fees he had accumulated during his operation of the business, and (4) ordered Husband to pay Wife's attorney's fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not (1) err by refusing to send the dispute to arbitration and by holding Husband in contempt; (2) deny Husband due process; and (3) err in awarding attorney's fees to Wife. Remanded for a determination of Wife's attorney's fees and costs on appeal. View "In re Marriage of Cini" on Justia Law

The Heins rented a house from Julia Benintendi and the Perkerwicz family (hereinafter B&P). B&P alleged the Heins caused considerable damage to the property when they vacated the premises. The Heins countered that B&P unlawfully retained their security deposit and refused to reimburse the Heins for home and lawn improvements. B&P sued and obtained a default judgment. The district court subsequently set aside the default judgment and held a jury trial. B&P were awarded damages but not attorney fees or costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees to both parties; (2) the district court incorrectly required each party to bear its own costs because, as the prevailing party, B&P was entitled to its costs under Mont. Code Ann. 25-10-101; and (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment because it had good cause to do so. View "Benintendi v. Hein" on Justia Law

In previous workers' compensation cases, the Montana Supreme Court had determined that its decisions apply retroactively to claims that are not "final" or "settled" at the time the decision was issued. Under statute, two types of claims fall under the definition of "settled," (1) claims where there has been a formal settlement agreement, and (2) claims that are "paid in full." In this case, the workers' compensation court (WCC) defined "paid in full" to mean that an injured worker received all the applicable benefits prior to a new judicial decision and had not received subsequent benefits on his or her pre-judicial decision claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC properly applied retroactivity law in formulating its definition of "paid in full." View "Flynn v. Mont. State Fund" on Justia Law

The City Police Department conducted an internal investigation of an administrative coordinator, who was placed on administrative leave after she allegedly misused public funds. The Department created a sixteen-page due process letter detailing the evidence against the coordinator, who subsequently resigned. The Billings Gazette requested the letter, but the City declined to release it. The Gazette sued the City. The district court ordered that the document be provided to the Gazette. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where two constitutional rights are implicated, including the public's right to know about the actions of public agencies and employees and the employees' right to privacy, the district court must balance the two rights to determine whether the employees' right to privacy outweighs the public's right to know; (2) in this case, the coordinator did not have a reasonable expectation of individual privacy to the document because she held a position of trust with the Department and she was accused of breaching that trust; and (3) the mere prospect of a criminal case will not deprive the public of its right to access a public document once that right has been balanced against the right to privacy. View "Gazette v. City of Billings" on Justia Law

Employee worked as a shareholder accountant for Employer. Employee's employment contract contained a covenant not to compete. After Employer ended its employment relationship with Employee, Employee began working at Employer's competitor, where she provided accounting services for a few of Employer's former clients in violation of the restrictive covenant. Employee sought a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable. The district court determined that the covenant was reasonable and enforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Employer's covenant was unenforceable because (1) Montana law requires that an employer establish a legitimate business interest in a restrictive covenant, which demands that the restriction on post-employment activities be necessary to protect an employer's good will, customer relationships, or trade information; (2) an employer lacks a legitimate business interest in a covenant when, under ordinary circumstances, it ends the employment relationship with the employee; and (3) Employer in this case elected to end its employment relationship with Employee without any misconduct on the part of Employee. View "Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C." on Justia Law

The Slacks sued the County for damages due to the County's alleged failure to comply with its statutory obligation to notify the Slacks that the home they purchased was once the site of a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. After a trial, the jury found the County was negligent and awarded the Slacks $563,592 in damages. The Supreme Court affirmed on all issues, holding (1) the County waived all the issues it raised on appeal; and (2) the district court properly denied the Slacks' motion for attorneys' fees because simply including attorneys' fees in a bill of costs does not entitle a party to recover attorneys' fees, and the County's defense was not frivolous or pursued in bad faith. View "Slack v. Landmark Co." on Justia Law

After Decedent died, Decedent's wife moved to admit his will to probate. Decedent's son, Bruce, filed an objection, alleging that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity to enter into the will, and that another of Decedent's sons, Neil, exerted undue influence over Decedent. Bruce further sought to set aside a cattle sale and options agreement and lease-cattle agreement, alleging that Decedent's lack of capacity to contract voided the agreements and that the agreements were the product of Neil's undue influence over Decedent. The district court granted the Estate's motion to dismiss, concluding that Bruce lacked standing to contest the will and agreements. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Bruce's allegations that a previous will existed that devised to him a larger portion of Decedent's estate than did the disputed will created a sufficient basis for Bruce to establish standing to contest the will; and (2) Bruce possessed standing to challenge the validity of the agreements to the extent that they concerned real property. Remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate its order to dismiss and to permit the parties to engage in discovery. View "In re Estate of Glennie" on Justia Law

Susan Overfield was charged with assault and disturbing the peace after appearing to speak at a City Commission meeting about perceived conflicts of interest between City officials and the Animal Foundation of Great Falls. Overfield subsequently sued the City. Before the City and Overfield settled the case, the district court concluded (1) the Animal Foundation, its trustee, and its attorney (Petitioners), who were non-parties in the underlying case, were in contempt for wrongfully redacting information from documents produced to Overfield, and (2) the Foundation was in contempt for failing to appear at a deposition with subpoenaed documents. After the case was settled, the district court entered an order awarding Overfield attorney fees against the Petitioners based on the contempt orders. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the contempt orders of the district court, holding that the district court properly considered and decided the contempt issues below without referral to another judge, and the contempt orders were supported by substantial evidence; but (2) vacated the district court's order to arrest the trustee, the court's imposition of sanctions against an attorney who filed a protective order on behalf of the Foundation, and the court's order awarding attorney fees. Remanded. View "Animal Found. of Great Falls v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law