Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A primary contractor entered into a subcontract with a heating and cooling company to install HVAC systems in an apartment complex. The subcontract included an arbitration clause allowing the contractor, at its sole option, to require arbitration of disputes. Over several years, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, leading the heating and cooling company to file suit for breach of contract and related claims. The contractor failed to respond timely to an amended complaint due to a breakdown in communication with its registered agent, resulting in a default being entered against it. After being properly served, the contractor and the heating and cooling company stipulated to set aside the default, and the contractor then filed an answer and counterclaims. Only after several months did the contractor move to stay proceedings and compel arbitration under the subcontract.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denied the contractor’s motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the contractor had acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate by failing to assert the arbitration right when reentering the litigation and by not including the arbitration defense in its initial answer. The court also determined that the delay prejudiced the heating and cooling company, which had incurred additional costs and surrendered its default judgment without knowing the contractor would later seek arbitration.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the contractor had waived its right to compel arbitration by acting inconsistently with that right and by causing prejudice to the opposing party. The court found no error in the District Court’s application of the waiver standard and declined to address arguments regarding federal arbitration law, as the waiver was established under Montana law. View "Monarch v. Petra" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with eight offenses, including sexual abuse of children under 12 and incest. He entered into a plea agreement with the State, pleading guilty to all counts in exchange for the State’s agreement to recommend specific terms of incarceration for each offense. The plea agreement was silent regarding any restrictions on parole eligibility and expressly allowed only the defendant, not the State, to argue for any legal sentence.After the plea agreement was executed, the Seventh Judicial District Court, Dawson County, held a sentencing hearing. At that hearing, the State recommended a 40-year parole restriction, even though the agreement did not mention parole restrictions. The defendant did not object at the hearing but requested no parole restriction. The District Court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 75 years in prison, with a 40-year parole restriction, explicitly referencing the State’s recommendation in its decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Applying plain error review due to the lack of objection at sentencing, the court held that the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by recommending a parole restriction not contemplated by the agreement. The court distinguished this case from State v. Lewis, 2012 MT 157, because, unlike in Lewis, the plea agreement here did not allow the State to argue for any lawful sentence. The court found that the breach affected the fairness of the proceedings, as the District Court’s decision was explicitly based on the prosecutor’s improper recommendation. The Supreme Court of Montana reversed the District Court’s sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge, ordering specific performance of the plea agreement. View "State v. Walton" on Justia Law

A married couple, who wed in 2020 and share a young child, purchased an engineering business together using loans secured by the wife’s premarital home. After their separation in 2023, the wife petitioned for divorce. The parties entered into interim agreements regarding custody, child support, and business management, but the husband repeatedly violated these orders by failing to make required payments, misusing business funds, and withholding financial disclosures. The wife raised concerns about the husband’s substance abuse and erratic behavior, providing evidence of his alcohol and marijuana use, as well as incidents of intoxication during child exchanges and at work. The husband denied these allegations but admitted to some problematic behavior in written communications.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, held multiple hearings, finding the husband in contempt several times for violating court orders. At trial, the court heard testimony and reviewed evidence regarding the husband’s parenting, financial conduct, and the parties’ competing proposals for the business. The court found the wife more credible, sanctioned the husband for discovery violations, and ultimately awarded her primary custody of the child, with the husband’s parenting time to be phased in only after he completed chemical dependency and mental health evaluations. The court also awarded the wife sole ownership of the business and her premarital home, requiring her to assume all related debts.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decisions. It held that the finding regarding the husband’s failure to make full financial disclosures was supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court also found no abuse of discretion in conditioning the husband’s parenting time on completion of evaluations or in awarding the business to the wife, as these decisions were equitable and consistent with Montana law. View "In re Marriage of Boeshans" on Justia Law

The case concerns Lloyd Mortier Barrus, who, along with his son Marshall, was involved in a series of violent events in Montana in May 2017. After a period of escalating paranoia and antigovernment rhetoric, Barrus and Marshall engaged in a high-speed chase and shootout with law enforcement, resulting in the death of Deputy Sheriff Mason Moore and the disabling of two police vehicles. Barrus was arrested after a standoff in which both he and Marshall fired at officers; Marshall was killed, and Barrus surrendered. Barrus was charged with deliberate homicide by accountability and two counts of attempted deliberate homicide by accountability.The First Judicial District Court, Broadwater County, presided over Barrus’s trial. Prior to trial, Barrus was found unfit to proceed due to a mental disorder but was later restored to fitness through involuntary medication. After a jury convicted Barrus on all counts, the court held a bifurcated evidentiary hearing to determine whether Barrus’s mental disease or disorder rendered him unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his behavior to the law, as required by § 46-14-311, MCA. Expert testimony was presented by both parties, with conflicting opinions regarding Barrus’s mental state at the time of the offense.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion by sentencing Barrus to the Department of Corrections (DOC) rather than the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS). The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Barrus appreciated the criminality of his actions and could have conformed his conduct to the law. The judgment sentencing Barrus to DOC custody was affirmed. View "State v. Barrus" on Justia Law

The defendant, while on probation for prior convictions, was involved in a series of incidents that led to multiple criminal charges. After fleeing from law enforcement during a stop, he was apprehended and his backpack, which he initially denied owning, was searched. The search revealed illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a mask matching the description of one worn by a gunman in a recent shooting. He was subsequently charged with attempted deliberate homicide, assault with a weapon, drug offenses, and obstructing a peace officer. Additionally, the State sought to revoke his previously suspended sentences.The First Judicial District Court of Montana denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his backpack, finding that law enforcement had particularized suspicion to justify the stop and subsequent search. The court also denied his motion to substitute counsel after a hearing, concluding that the defendant’s complaints did not establish good cause for new representation. The defendant was convicted by juries on the drug charges and the attempted deliberate homicide and assault charges. The court revoked his suspended sentences and imposed new sentences, ordering all to run concurrently.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana addressed three main issues. First, the Court held that the District Court erred by allowing a key witness to testify via video deposition at trial without a proper showing of the witness’s unavailability, violating the defendant’s confrontation rights. The State conceded this error, and the Supreme Court reversed the convictions for attempted deliberate homicide and assault with a weapon, remanding for a new trial on those charges. The Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the motion to substitute counsel, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court also ordered new sentencing for the drug convictions and the revocation of suspended sentences, as the original sentences were influenced by the now-reversed convictions. View "State v. Songer" on Justia Law

After a 17-year marriage, a couple divorced in 2018. The court awarded the wife, who was a homemaker, five years of maintenance and set child support based on her imputed income and the husband’s substantial earnings as an orthodontist. The wife later suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident, which left her unable to work for two years. She remarried, ending her maintenance payments, and subsequently experienced ongoing health issues, including complications from Covid-19. By 2024, her maintenance had expired, her income was significantly reduced, and she alleged that the children’s needs had changed, including concerns about health insurance for a special needs child. She also claimed the husband’s income had increased.The Montana Fifth Judicial District Court denied her motion to modify child support without permitting discovery or holding an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that the expiration of maintenance was anticipated in the original decree and did not constitute a changed circumstance. It also found the wife’s claims about the husband’s increased income and the children’s needs to be speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence, and thus concluded that no changed circumstances warranted review or modification of the child support order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the wife’s substantial decrease in income, her ongoing health impairments, the children’s aging and insurance needs, and the husband’s alleged increased income constituted sufficient changed circumstances to warrant further inquiry. The Court found that the District Court abused its discretion by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing, as these were necessary to determine whether the existing child support order had become unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, including discovery and a hearing. View "In re Marriage of Jackson" on Justia Law

Victory Insurance Company, a Montana property and casualty insurer, issued workers’ compensation policies to several businesses in 2019. Later that year, Victory entered into an agreement with Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company to reinsure and then purchase Victory’s book of business, including the relevant policies. Victory notified its insureds by phone and sent a single email on December 31, 2019, stating that their policies would be “upgraded” to Clear Spring policies effective January 1, 2020. All policies were rewritten under Clear Spring as of that date.The Montana Commissioner of Securities & Insurance (CSI) initiated an enforcement action in December 2022, alleging that Victory had illegally cancelled its policies and could be fined up to $2.7 million. After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment before a CSI Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner found that Victory committed 165 violations of Montana’s insurance code and recommended summary judgment for the CSI. The CSI adopted this recommendation, imposing a $250,000 fine with $150,000 suspended, payable only if further violations occurred within a year. Victory sought judicial review in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which affirmed the CSI’s decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case, applying the same standards as the district court. The Court held that the Hearing Examiner properly granted summary judgment because Victory’s actions constituted cancellations under the insurance code, regardless of whether they could also be considered assignments. The Court also held that Victory’s due process rights were not violated during the fine imposition process, that the statutory delegation of fine authority to the CSI was constitutional, and that Victory was not entitled to a jury trial because there were no material factual disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Victory Insurance v. State" on Justia Law

Twin infants were removed from their parents’ care after authorities found them living in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, including exposure to drugs, lack of medical care, and the presence of a registered sex offender in the home. The parents had a history of involvement with child protective services, including three prior removals of their older children due to domestic violence, substance abuse, and neglect, culminating in the involuntary termination of their parental rights to those children. After the twins’ birth in Washington, the family returned to Montana, where similar concerns quickly arose, leading to the Department of Public Health and Human Services seeking emergency protective services and termination of parental rights.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, held hearings on the Department’s petition. The parents did not contest probable cause for removal at the emergency hearing. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, who recommended that no reunification efforts were required due to the parents’ history. At the adjudication and termination hearing, the court found clear and convincing evidence of aggravated circumstances, including chronic, severe neglect and prior involuntary terminations, and concluded that the parents’ unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The court terminated both parents’ rights to the twins and granted permanent legal custody to the Department, finding that a treatment plan and further reunification efforts were not statutorily required.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in terminating the father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court held that substantial evidence supported the District Court’s findings of chronic, severe neglect and the relevance of prior terminations. The Court also held that the Department was not required to provide reunification services after seeking a determination that such efforts were unnecessary, and that the father’s due process rights were not violated. The decision of the District Court was affirmed. View "In re S.W. & D.W." on Justia Law

After the dissolution of their marriage in 2019, two parents agreed to a parenting plan for their child, D.C.S., which was adopted by the court and provided that the child would primarily reside with the mother, Rebeccah, while the father, Joshua, would have parenting time during visits to Montana. This arrangement remained unchanged for nearly four years. In 2022, the child’s maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, the Scotts, began caring for D.C.S. due to concerns about Rebeccah’s behavior, including substance abuse and neglect. The Scotts alleged that the child’s living conditions with Rebeccah were unsafe and that Joshua had not been involved in the child’s life for several years. After Rebeccah removed D.C.S. from school and moved him to North Dakota, the Scotts sought third-party parenting rights and obtained an ex parte emergency order granting them temporary custody.The Scotts filed their petition and emergency motion in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Rebeccah objected, challenging the Scotts’ standing and the allegations against her, and moved to amend or set aside the emergency order. The District Court denied her motion, finding the Scotts’ affidavits sufficient for temporary relief. After a full evidentiary hearing, where both sides presented evidence, the District Court issued findings and amended the parenting plan, granting primary custody to the Scotts and parenting time to Rebeccah.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court’s final custody order should be vacated due to alleged procedural errors in granting the initial emergency order, and whether plain error review was warranted for the denial of Rebeccah’s post-judgment motions. The Supreme Court held that any procedural defects in the temporary order were cured by the subsequent evidentiary hearing and final order, rendering those issues moot. The Court also declined to exercise plain error review, finding no manifest miscarriage of justice. The District Court’s order was affirmed. View "In re Parenting of D.C.S." on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old youth admitted to sexually assaulting his two younger half-siblings, ages six and seven, over a period spanning late 2021 to early 2023. The abuse involved coercion through threats of withholding privileges and included both physical and digital penetration. The youth was charged with multiple counts of felony sexual assault and incest, and a more serious charge was dismissed as part of a plea agreement. A psychosexual evaluation found the youth to be at moderate risk of reoffending and recommended against requiring registration as a sexual offender, suggesting that avoiding registration would better support his rehabilitation. The victims’ family members and therapist, however, advocated for registration due to the trauma suffered.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, reviewed the psychosexual evaluation, probation officer’s report, and victim impact statements. The court designated the youth as a Level 2 Sexual Offender, committed him to a youth correctional facility until age 18, and placed him on probation until age 21. Despite recommendations against registration from the evaluator and probation officer, the court ordered the youth to register as a sexual offender for life, citing the need to protect the public given the nature of the offenses and the youth’s position of trust.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana considered whether the District Court abused its discretion in imposing the registration requirement. The Supreme Court held that the District Court acted within its discretion, finding substantial evidence supported the decision and that the court properly considered the statutory requirements and public interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s order requiring the youth to register as a sexual offender. View "In re B.J.B." on Justia Law