Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Frank Piocos was not eligible to be a candidate for Roosevelt County Attorney, holding that the district court had substantial, credible evidence to support a finding that Piocos was not a resident of Roosevelt County for voting purposes on November 8, 2022.In January 2022, Piocos filed as a candidate for County Attorney. Piocos elected on November 8, 2022. On January 20, 2023, Contestant brought this action challenging Piocos's eligibility based on residency grounds. The district court determined that the election was void because Piocos was not a resident of Roosevelt County for thirty days prior to the election. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) for purposes of voting under Mont. Code Ann. 13-1-112, the Legislature's intent was for a person to have a place of abode in the county to which the person intends to return even when absent; and (2) the district court did not err when it found that Piocos did not reside in Roosevelt County without making a factual finding of where he did reside. View "Downs v. Piocos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court following a jury verdict in favor of Glacier Eye Center, P.C. (GEC) and Kalispell Regional Medical Center, Inc. (KRMC) in this medical malpractice action, holding that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give certain jury instructions, requiring that this matter be remanded for a new trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give the jury a proportionate duty instruction and a loss of chance instruction under the facts of this case, and the court's failure to give these instructions resulted in the jury not being fully and fairly instructed in the applicable law, prejudicing Defendant and requiring a new trial; and (2) the district court erred by failing to poll the jury in the manner required by statute. View "Camen v. Glacier Eye Clinic, P.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgments of the district court adjudicating a parental interest and accompanying parenting plan regarding Father's minor child in favor of his non-parent ex-wife (Surrogate), holding that the district court erroneously made a child custody parenting plan determination involving a non-parent without the predicate parental interest implied as a condition precedent to imposition of a best interests-based parenting plan.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) correctly concluded that the preclusive terms of a gestational carrier agreement did not preclude Surrogate from later acquiring or establishing a parental interest and right to the extent independently authorized under Montana law; (2) did not err in finding and concluding that Father voluntarily signed the premarital agreement and that it ws thus a validly formed and enforceable contract; (3) did not erroneously reject Father’s assertion that the parent-child relationship provision was unenforceable as equitably unconscionable; and (4) erroneously adjudicated a non parent "parental interest" in favor of Surrogate without the required predicated finding of fact specified by Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-228(2)(a). View "Sayler v. Yan Sun" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting a Partnership's motion for summary judgment and concluding that Tract 3, one of three individual tracts that were carved out from Owners' land for separate ownership by each of the Partnership's owners, was burdened by a thirty-foot easement and could not benefit from it, holding that there was no error.In 1990, Owners conveyed the property at issue to the Partnership and conveyed Tract 3 to R.A. Roehder. The warranty deed conveying the property provided that the property was given together with thirty-foot-wide easements for ingress and egress. Roehder later sold his interest in the Partnership. After Roehder's death, Tract 3 was acquired by Zinvest, LLC by tax deed, and Zinvest conveyed the property to Lee Lou. The Partnership later filed a complaint to quiet title with a declaratory judgment that Lee Lou owned no interest in the easement and only the partnership had an interest in the easement. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Partnership. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Tract 3 did not benefit from the thirty-foot easement and that tracts 1 and 2 did benefit from the easement. View "Duke Trust v. Lee Lou, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Whitefish and affirming the Whitefish City Council's decisions to deny a conditional use permit (CUP) and grant Resolution 21-43, which denied the permit, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Whitefish 57 Commercial, LLC and Rimrock Companies, LLC (collectively, Appellants) applied for a CUP to develop a hotel on a lot of their subdivision. After a public hearing on the development project the Council adopted Resolution 21-43 that denied the permit. Appellants appealed, claiming that the Council abused its discretion in denying their CUP. The district court granted summary judgment against Appellants. View "Whitefish 57 Commercial, LLC v. City of Whitefish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court imposing costs, surcharges, and fees as recommended by Defendant's presentence investigation report in connection with his conviction of felony driving under the influence pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-401, holding that remand was required.Despite Defendant's objections that he could not afford to pay, the district court imposed a $5,000 fine, several costs, surcharges and fees. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for the court to strike the costs, surcharges, and fees from the judgment, holding that the court misapprehended the effect of the evidence at the sentencing hearing in concluding that Defendant had the ability to pay because his assets outweighed his liabilities. View "State v. Dowd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court in this tax appeal, holding that the district court erred by concluding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2119, the NOL statute, operates as a dollar-for-dollar offset provision that indirectly taxes out-of-state income.At issue was the decision of the Department of Revenue to deny nonresident taxpayers Franklin and Janet Tiegs a carryover net operating loss (NOL) deduction on their 2014 and 2015 Montana income tax returns. The Montana Tax Appeal Board upheld the Department's decision, but the district court reversed, concluding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2119 was unconstitutional because it authorized taxation of non-Montana income. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred by holding that the general use of out-of-state income within the Montana income tax framework violated Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2102 and federal constitutional principles; and (2) erred by concluding that section 15-30-2119 constitutes impermissible taxation of income outside of Montana's jurisdictional reach. View "Tiegs v. State, Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to transfer his criminal case to youth court, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider Appellant's mitigating and unrequited evidence supporting transfer.Defendant had turned seventeen years old one month before the incident leading to his charges of sexual intercourse without consent, sexual abuse of children, and sexual assault. After a hearing to determine if the case should be transferred to youth court, the district court concluded that transferring the case would be in Defendant's best interests and would serve the interests of community protection but that the transfer should be denied based on the severity of the offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court misapprehended the evidence presented by Defendant suggesting that the nature of the offense did not warrant district court prosecution and, instead, impermissibly reached its conclusion based solely on the egregious facts of the offense. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's suspended sentences, holding that the district court had no authority to revoke Defendant's sentence and impose on a new sentence on the basis that it did.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in revoking the suspended portions of his sentences for failing to enroll or complete treatment prior to his release from prison. At issue was whether Defendant would be in immediate violation of his probation conditions upon release to the suspended portion of his sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence imposed upon Defendant, holding that the district court lacked the authority to revoke Defendant's sentence and impose a new sentence on the basis that Defendant did not have sex offender treatment arranged prior to release to the suspended portion of his sentence because no such requirement was contained in his probation conditions. View "State v. Pulst" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court awarding Plaintiff $1,000 in actual damages and $2,000 in punitive damages in the underlying trial relating to Defendant's potentially racial motivations for two incidents leading to Plaintiff's assault and battery and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, holding that a new trial was required.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in granting Defendant's motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff's race-based evidence because of its prejudicial nature from the punitive damages phase of trial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the district court erred in excluding this evidence during the punitive damage phase of trial and that a new trial was required limited to the amount of punitive damages for which Defendant was liable to Plaintiff in accordance with this opinion. View "Two Leggins v. Gatrell" on Justia Law