Diane G. Barz

In State v. Evans, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary, two counts of felony assault, and felony theft after breaking into a neighbor's home, using a stun gun to attack her, firing a shot, and stealing items including her phone records; he appealed on multiple grounds including whether a stun gun qualified as a weapon, alleged errors in jury instructions and evidence handling, double jeopardy, expert testimony on handwriting, sentencing conditions, and witness sequestration. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the stun gun met the statutory definition of a weapon for the charged offenses, the district court did not err in its evidentiary or instructional rulings, double jeopardy did not apply because the offenses involved distinct elements, the sexual offender treatment condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation given the obsessive and sexual nature of the assault, and other claims lacked merit. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the jury's findings and that sentencing complied with Montana statutes allowing conditions tied to rehabilitation and public protection.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Sor-Lokken, the defendant was convicted in Montana district court of felony sexual assault and incest involving his 15-year-old stepdaughter and sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years (with five suspended) and ten years, plus designation as a dangerous offender. He appealed on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction for the arrest warrant, inadequate probable cause determination, failure to arraign on the amended information, prosecutorial interference with witness interviews, denial of habeas corpus, double jeopardy violations, juror misconduct, excessive bail, and improper reliance on prior convictions. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err on any of the procedural or substantive claims and that the prior convictions were properly considered at sentencing.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two insurance companies over coverage for a fire that destroyed a residence in Montana. Farm Bureau had issued a policy to the property owner, while Credit General had issued a policy to the bank holding a security interest in the property; after Farm Bureau paid the policy limit to the bank, it sought contribution from Credit General. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to Credit General, ruling that Farm Bureau's policy provided primary coverage and Credit General's provided only excess coverage. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when one policy contains a pro-rata "other insurance" clause and the other an excess clause, the excess clause controls, making the pro-rata policy primary and precluding contribution. The court adopted the majority rule on such clause conflicts, finding it consistent with prior Montana precedent.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Van Pelt, the defendant was charged and convicted by a jury in Montana district court of two counts of incest, one count of sexual assault, and one count of attempted sexual intercourse without consent against his nine-year-old stepdaughter. On appeal, Van Pelt argued that the district court erred by denying his request to subpoena an out-of-state witness and by granting the state's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the victim's prior sexual abuse under Montana statute § 45-5-511(4). The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the proposed witness was not material because she could not establish lack of opportunity for the crimes, and that evidence of prior sexual abuse was inadmissible because it was not shown to be false and was irrelevant to the victim's knowledge of sexual activity. The court further held that excluding such evidence did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the state or federal constitutions.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

Edsall Construction, a Montana company, sued Larry and Kristen Robinson, Utah residents operating Imperial Tile, for $15,114 in damages arising from an alleged breach of an oral sub-bid contract for tile work on a federal project in Utah. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, found a contract existed, and awarded damages after a bench trial. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that Montana lacked personal jurisdiction under Rule 4B of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure because the defendants had insufficient minimum contacts with the state, the contract was to be performed entirely in Utah, and the bidding and project occurred in Utah. The court emphasized that the telephone communications alone did not establish the requisite purposeful availment of Montana's laws.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a breach of contract dispute between Trad Industries, a Canadian corporation, and Welch Brogan, a Montana game farm operator, over two written agreements for the sale of 82 elk with specified cut-off dates in 1987 and deposits paid by Trad. Brogan appealed the district court's judgment awarding damages to Trad, raising issues including the parol evidence rule, enforcement of an oral agreement extending delivery dates, sufficiency of evidence, and the scope of damages; Trad cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that testimony supported an oral extension of the contracts, that substantial credible evidence backed the findings, that damages for all contracted elk were proper, and that no exemplary or tort damages applied because this was a standard commercial contract for goods governed by the UCC without a special relationship warranting bad faith tort claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Art Weaver, appearing pro se on behalf of himself and Weaver-Maxwell, Inc., suing his former attorneys for alleged legal malpractice and overcharging in connection with two lawsuits: one against Northwestern Bank of Great Falls that settled for $1.3 million after a reversed jury verdict, and one against International Harvester that settled for $720,000. Weaver's eight-count complaint claimed issues including excessive fees, delayed filings leading to lost opportunities like a Burger King franchise, failure to pursue an antitrust claim, and malpractice resulting in lower settlements. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact because Weaver failed to demonstrate that but for the attorneys' conduct he would have obtained better outcomes, some claims were already addressed in the settlements, and discovery disputes did not warrant reversal.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a minority shareholder's claims against an engineering firm, a related real estate holding company, and their president following his termination, seeking payment for his shares based on alleged breach of fiduciary duty, oppressive tactics, constructive fraud, and an oral contract to pay fair market value. The district court ruled for the plaintiff, awarding $53,128 plus appraisal costs but denying attorney fees. The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that no enforceable contract required purchase of the shares at fair market value, that statutory appraisal rights did not apply, and that the lower court erred in its findings on the claims and in awarding costs without proper basis.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a challenge to a city zoning ordinance that prohibited the placement of individual manufactured homes in an R-4 residential-apartment district, while allowing modular and site-built homes. The plaintiff, after being denied a building permit for a manufactured home on a permanent foundation, appealed the Board of Adjustment's decision and argued the ordinance was unconstitutional. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment upholding the ordinance, holding that it was a valid exercise of the city's police power under a comprehensive zoning plan. The court also found no abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment without an additional evidentiary hearing, given the existing record of documents, stipulations, and arguments.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a 1982 sales agreement for a business where the buyers defaulted on payments after multiple assignments, leading the seller (plaintiff Ottersen) to repossess and sell collateral consisting of inventory and fixtures. The plaintiff sought to establish a security interest, obtain possession, foreclose on the collateral, and recover a deficiency judgment for the remaining balance after sales. The district court awarded judgment, costs, and fees to the plaintiff following a non-jury trial, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The core reasoning centered on UCC requirements under § 30-9-504(3), MCA, that commercially reasonable notice of sale must be provided to debtors prior to disposition of collateral, with the court holding that failure to give such notice (including for part of the collateral sold privately without notice) precludes a deficiency judgment, though judicial proceedings covered the rest.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Melotz v. Scheckla, the plaintiff purchased a used diesel engine from the defendant for his trucking business, alleging the seller made oral statements warranting its good running condition and recent major repairs. After repeated mechanical issues including low oil pressure and overheating despite multiple repairs, the plaintiff could not complete a hauling contract and sued for breach of warranty and consequential damages. The jury awarded damages to the plaintiff, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that sufficient evidence supported the warranty and that the plaintiff reasonably mitigated damages by following the seller's repair advice before learning the engine was irreparable. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings on discovery sanctions and evidence admission.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Dean v. Fred's Towing, plaintiff Donald Dean sued Michael Hoepfner and others for property damage and related claims arising from the sheriff's seizure and towing of a truck under a writ of execution from an earlier justice court judgment. Hoepfner failed to make a formal appearance after receiving service and a temporary restraining order, leading to entry of default and default judgment against him; the district court denied his motion to set it aside. The court also initially ruled that funds in a joint bank account traceable to Hoepfner's spouse's social security benefits were not exempt from execution to satisfy the judgment. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the refusal to set aside the default judgment under Rules 55(c) and 60(b) for lack of excusable neglect or other grounds, but reversed on the exemption issue, holding that traceable social security benefits remain exempt under federal law and Montana's tracing statute even when commingled in a joint account. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the exemption ruling.

procedureproperty

The case involved Rhonda and Mark Blaskovich suing Noreast Development Corp., owner of the Cottonwood Inn, for negligence after Rhonda slipped and fell on a snow-packed parking lot, fracturing her leg; the fall occurred on a clear day with light snow cover, and the lot had last been plowed twelve days earlier. The District Court granted summary judgment to Noreast, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the undisputed facts showed no genuine issue of material fact, and under precedents such as Luebeck v. Safeway Stores, a property owner owes no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice when the hazards are known. The decision applied a standard of ordinary care in property management rather than relying on invitee status, finding Noreast entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A dissent argued for reversal to allow a jury to assess reasonableness under the circumstances.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved a former wife filing a URESA action in Montana district court to collect unpaid child support from her ex-husband following their 1981 divorce and her 1982 remarriage and move to Nebraska with the children. The district court entered judgment awarding her $16,775 in back support but declined to hold the ex-husband in contempt. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts differed from a prior precedent because there was no mutual agreement to waive support in exchange for non-visitation, the mother had actively sought enforcement since 1982, the father knew the children's location, and he had made only minimal payment and contact attempts.

family law

The case involved defendant Tommy G. Johnstone, who was charged with felony attempted theft and misdemeanor criminal trespass to vehicles after breaking the ventilator window of a parked truck at a Montana fishing access site. The State presented evidence of the defendant's prior theft convictions to establish motive, intent, and a common scheme, and later amended the information to add a separate felony theft count. The District Court denied motions to dismiss and allowed the other-crimes evidence at trial. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant acted with the requisite mental state for attempted theft. A dissent argued that the hidden pistol could not have been the object of purposeful or knowing theft and that undisclosed evidence of other visible property in the truck prejudiced the defense.

criminal law

This case involved buyers Alex and Trudy Smith who sued sellers Robert and Anita Johnson to enforce a buy/sell agreement for an 87-acre tract of land in Montana through specific performance, requiring the Johnsons to execute a contract for deed. The District Court granted partial summary judgment ordering specific performance and, after a bench trial, awarded the Smiths $3,594.05 in damages for delayed possession, while also addressing attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's rulings on specific performance and damages, holding that the buy/sell agreement created an enforceable obligation that the Johnsons breached by failing to close and by re-leasing the property. The court remanded for determination of additional attorney's fees, costs on appeal, and allowable pre-judgment costs under state statute, but declined to impose sanctions for the appeal. The dispute centered on whether post-agreement negotiations and delays altered the original contract terms regarding interest, prorations, and closing.

propertyprocedure

In this case, Scott Graber sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and its agents after they refused to defend or indemnify him under a business insurance policy for a federal copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Alaska Northwest Publishing Co., which alleged that Graber copied portions of its publication The Milepost in his Travel Guide. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm, concluding that the underlying complaint did not trigger coverage. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy required property damage defined as physical injury to tangible property or loss of its use, but the allegations involved only economic losses such as lost advertising revenue and harm to reputation. Because those claims did not meet the policy's definition of an occurrence or property damage, State Farm had no duty to defend or indemnify. The court declined to address whether an occurrence existed under the policy because the lower court had not ruled on that issue.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved the family of eight-year-old Ryan VanLuchene suing the State of Montana for negligence after Ryan was sexually assaulted and murdered by Robert Hornback, a convicted sex offender released from prison upon expiration of his sentence. The plaintiffs claimed the state failed to provide required therapy, ignored assaults on Hornback in prison, did not discipline him in ways that could have affected his good time, did not detain him despite threats, and issued no public warning of his release. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the state, concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the state had no duty under statute or common law to ensure prisoner rehabilitation, detain inmates past their sentences, or warn the public of potentially dangerous releases. The court reasoned that the alleged statutory violations did not create negligence per se, proximate cause claims were too speculative, and broad public warnings would be impractical and of little protective value.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved Donald Leon Spieth, who was convicted in Bozeman City Court of driving under the influence of alcohol (fourth offense) and sentenced accordingly. He filed a timely notice of appeal to the District Court but did not request transmittal of the record until nearly 18 months later, leading the District Court to dismiss the appeal as untimely under Montana Code Annotated § 46-17-311. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory right to appeal from city court requires strict compliance, including the appellant's duty to perfect the appeal by ensuring record transfer within 30 days, and that delays caused by the defendant do not support dismissal of charges or due process claims regarding sentence execution.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Senn, defendant Gary Lee Senn faced criminal charges of forgery, accountability to forgery, criminal possession of dangerous drugs, and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia in Montana district court. He initially pled not guilty, then entered guilty pleas under a plea agreement, but later moved to withdraw the pleas on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motions, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. Applying the two-pronged Strickland test, the court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice, citing the signed plea waiver, court colloquy, and lack of supporting evidence.

criminal lawprocedure