Mike McGrath

In this case, Daniel Burns appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his 2009 guilty plea to one felony count of sexual abuse of children, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel including an unauthorized venue change and misleading advice about trial risks and prior allegations. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial, treating the motion as one for post-conviction relief and finding no good cause under § 46-16-105(2), MCA, because the plea was voluntary and Burns was aware of its direct consequences. The court reasoned that counsel's advice fell within the range of professional competence, as it involved proper evaluation of evidence and jury issues, and Burns' claims about the venue motion and other statements were unsupported by the record or contradicted by counsel's response. Burns also failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was induced to plead guilty by any improper actions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the dissolution of a marriage between Anne Nang Loi and Todd Feeley, focusing on the equitable distribution of marital property under Montana law, including the portion of the down payment on the family home that could be traced to Anne's pre-marital inheritance from a family business sale. The district court awarded Anne an additional equity credit of only $79,982.50 in the home, rather than the $180,000 she claimed, after finding insufficient evidence beyond testimony to support tracing the full amount. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly considered the parties' testimony, the length of the marriage, and statutory factors in § 40-4-202, MCA, and based its decision on substantial evidence of what could be conclusively traced to inherited funds. The court emphasized equitable apportionment of all assets regardless of source while requiring credible proof for specific credits.

family lawproperty

This case arose from a dispute between neighboring property owners in Libby, Montana, after Neil Milner built a workshop addition to his home that violated city setback ordinances, leading to snow damage on Gary Olsen's property and failed negotiations to sell a strip of land to resolve the issue. Following an initial lawsuit over the land sale agreement that ended without relief for Olsen, he filed a second action claiming private nuisance and trespass, seeking damages, abatement, and a mandatory injunction. The district court granted Olsen's requested relief, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that res judicata did not bar the claims because they involved distinct issues and facts not fully litigated previously, equitable estoppel and waiver did not apply, and trespass liability was established. The court also addressed Olsen's entitlement to attorney fees. A dissent argued that res judicata should have precluded the second suit as the core issues were the same.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the Town of Manhattan's appeal from a district court order upholding the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation's (DNRC) termination of the Town's application to change its municipal water rights. The Town sought to designate alternate points of diversion and expand its place of use but refused to provide historical water use information from before July 1, 1973, as required by DNRC rules. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the DNRC was authorized by statute and regulation to request such information to assess potential adverse effects on other water rights, and that an incomplete application must be terminated. The Court noted that issues regarding the nature of municipal water rights were not ripe for review since no decision on the merits had been made.

environmentpropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a Montana abuse and neglect proceeding in which the State removed two children from their mother's care after substantiating claims of endangerment and physical neglect due to her alcohol abuse, while the parents shared legal custody following their divorce. The children were placed with their father under a safety plan, the district court adjudicated them as youths in need of care, and at the dispositional hearing the father moved to dismiss the State's case and obtain sole custody. The district court granted the motion over the mother's objection, finding no factual disputes requiring evidence and applying a statute that permits placement with the noncustodial parent and dismissal of the proceeding. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly followed the statutory procedure under § 41-3-438(3)(d), MCA, which relieved the State of further obligations once the children were placed with the father, and that the mother could pursue a parenting plan action under Title 40, MCA.

family law

Cascade Development sued the City of Bozeman over a dispute involving a subdivision project the company was developing. After filing its complaint in 2007, Cascade did not attempt service for nearly three years, eventually delivering the papers to a deputy city attorney rather than to one of the officials listed in Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k). The city moved to quash service and dismiss the case, arguing that the three-year deadline for service had expired. The district court granted the motion, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the rule strictly limits who may accept service on behalf of a municipality and that the city was not estopped from raising the defect.

procedure

The case concerned Clayton DeVoe's attempt to obtain a building permit from the City of Missoula for a large storage structure on a residentially zoned lot. The City denied the permit on the ground that the structure did not qualify as an "accessory" building under the municipal zoning code because it was not customarily incidental to the principal residential use on the same premises. After the Board of Adjustment revoked a later-issued permit following neighbor appeals, DeVoe sued the City and the neighbors; the district court upheld the zoning decision and awarded attorney fees to the neighbors under Foy v. Anderson. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the zoning determination was correct, that DeVoe's claims against the neighbors were frivolous, and that the district court acted within its discretion both in awarding fees and in denying the neighbors' request for additional "fees for fees."

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Lionel Ellison's conviction in Yellowstone County Justice Court for misdemeanor partner or family member assault, which he appealed to the District Court and then to the Montana Supreme Court. Ellison claimed the prosecution violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland by withholding evidence from a related witness tampering investigation, including a transcript of the victim's statements about medications she had taken and text messages she allegedly sent. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the State did not suppress the evidence because Ellison was aware of it or it was available to him prior to trial, and the evidence was not material because it would not have produced a different result.

criminal law

The case involved joint debtors in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding who sought to claim an exemption for their Yamaha ATV under Montana's sporting goods exemption statute. The Montana Supreme Court answered a certified question from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court by holding that an ATV is a motor vehicle, not a sporting good, and thus subject only to the separate motor vehicle exemption with its lower value limit. The court reasoned that Montana's motor vehicle code defines an ATV as a motor vehicle subject to registration and titling requirements, and that the legislature's provision of distinct exemptions for motor vehicles and for firearms and sporting goods demonstrated an intent to treat them separately. Liberal construction of exemptions under the state constitution does not override this statutory classification.

property

The case involved Alicia Hocter, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and criminal endangerment after striking her boyfriend's infant daughter, causing permanent injuries, while caring for the child and then failing to promptly summon medical aid. Hocter appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss the endangerment charge and the jury instructions allowing conviction based on an omission or failure to act. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that Hocter had assumed a parental-like role and thus owed a common-law duty to protect the child from harm, which supported criminal liability for her failure to seek help.

criminal lawfamily law

Meril Curtis sued Citibank after unauthorized charges were made on his credit card; Citibank acknowledged the charges were not his but referred the account to a collection agency, leading Curtis to allege libel, credit libel, and violations of the Montana Consumer Protection Act. The district court granted Citibank judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act preempted the state-law claims. The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that FCRA preemption under 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F) applies only to furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies, and the collection agency involved did not meet the statutory definition of such an agency. The court therefore determined that Curtis’s state claims were not preempted and could proceed.

federal powerbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In Harmon v. Fiscus Realty, Inc., the plaintiffs sued the real estate company and others under the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act after buying a house with construction defects, claiming the company was liable for misrepresentations by an associated salesperson. The jury found for the company on the one claim against it that reached trial, after which the company sought attorney fees as a prevailing party under the Act. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of fees, applying the standard that fees may be awarded to a prevailing defendant only upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, which the court determined did not apply given the factual issues on the agency relationship.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Richard Edwards' conviction for deliberate homicide and tampering with physical evidence arising from the 2002 shooting death of Daniel Lavigne. Edwards appealed, arguing that the district court should have barred his wife's testimony under spousal privilege, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the court failed to adequately inquire into his post-trial request for new counsel. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that spousal privilege under the applicable 2001 statutes did not exclude the wife's observations of the crime or statements accompanied by threats. It further concluded that defense counsel had adequately challenged the wife's credibility at trial and that, although the district court erred by not inquiring into the substitution request, no actual conflict or complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship existed that would have required new counsel. The court therefore found no basis for reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Hector Valdez-Mendoza, who was charged with sexual intercourse without consent and unlawful transactions with children in Musselshell County. After his attorney filed several pretrial motions, including for change of venue and speedy trial, Valdez-Mendoza entered a guilty plea to the reduced charge of sexual assault. He later sought to withdraw the plea on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, but the district court denied the motion. The Montana Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because counsel failed to investigate defense witnesses despite believing in a strong defense and advised the plea based on racial community bias without adequately explaining rights or defenses, following precedents like Thomas v. Lockhart.

criminal law

In State v. Olivares-Coster, the defendant, who was seventeen at the time of the offenses, pled guilty to one count of deliberate homicide and two counts of attempted deliberate homicide. The district court imposed three consecutive and concurrent life sentences and concluded that state law automatically restricted his parole eligibility for sixty years, though it declined to impose any discretionary parole restriction due to his youth and rehabilitation prospects. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reviewed the legality of the sentence and determined that the district court had erroneously applied § 46-23-201(4), MCA, resulting in an illegal parole restriction that was inconsistent with the oral pronouncement and not mandated by statute. The court affirmed the sentences in part but reversed the parole eligibility restriction and remanded for correction of the illegal provision, allowing the district court to consider whether to impose any restriction under its discretionary authority.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Montana appealing a district court's suppression of breath test results in a driving under the influence prosecution against Gavin Johnston. The district court had granted the suppression based on a prior Supreme Court decision referencing a weekly field certification requirement for breath analysis instruments, despite the relevant administrative rule having been updated to require certification every 31 days. The Supreme Court reversed the order, holding that the prior decision's reference to weekly certification was erroneous dicta and that the instrument used had been properly certified under the current rule eight days before the arrest.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved James Patrick's appeal from a district court order in his postconviction relief proceedings, where the original sentencing judge recused herself and the case was reassigned. The State then moved under § 3-1-804, MCA, to substitute the new judge, and Patrick challenged the substitution on grounds including improper service and that such motions are not permitted in postconviction cases; the district court denied his motions to invalidate the substitution and for additional time to file his own substitution request. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the State's substitution, finding the statute permitted it after recusal and that Patrick received actual notice despite the initial service error. However, it reversed in part on equitable grounds, holding that Patrick should be allowed 20 days from remittitur to file his own timely motion for substitution because the law was unsettled at the time of his objection. The court rejected Patrick's remaining due process and equal protection claims for lack of supporting authority.

criminal lawprocedure

In Touris v. Flathead County, the plaintiffs challenged the Flathead County Board of Commissioners' denial of their request for a zoning change by first filing a petition for judicial review in Touris I, which alleged errors in the decision-making process including biased reports and improper influence, and then filing a separate action in Touris II asserting eleven counts including violations of due process and equal protection along with negligence claims based on the same underlying facts. The District Court granted summary judgment to the County in Touris II, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata barred the claims because Touris I had been dismissed with prejudice, which operated as a final adverse adjudication on the identical issues raised. The court reasoned that a dismissal with prejudice precludes relitigation of the same claims regardless of procedural differences between the actions, and there was no waiver of the res judicata defense by the County. The opinion did not address the merits of the zoning decision itself.

procedurepropertycivil rights

This case involved a property dispute between adjoining landowners in Montana, where Russell and Melissa Levens sued Al Ballard and his mining company to enforce a 2005 written agreement that relocated their shared boundary and required Ballard to maintain a 30-foot buffer strip to protect lateral support for the Levens property from his adjacent gold mining pit. After the district court granted summary judgment enforcing the agreement and permanently enjoining excavation within 30 feet of the boundary, Ballard sought to clarify or amend the judgment to allow activities like road building and well drilling on the strip, leading to further disputes over compliance. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court's denial of Levens' contempt motion and its award of attorney fees to Ballard, holding that the 2006 judgment must be construed to prohibit any excavation that causes the pit to intrude into the buffer strip through sloughing, subsidence, or similar means. The court reasoned that the agreement's explicit language on lateral support, combined with Ballard's own prior court filings acknowledging the prohibition on enlarging the pit toward the boundary, precluded any distinction between direct excavation and its resulting effects that would undermine the buffer.

propertyprocedure

Leonard Brown sued Yellowstone Club Operations, LLC under Montana's Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act after his employment was terminated without cause roughly six months into a three-year contract that allowed either party to end the relationship at will upon notice. The district court dismissed the claim under the Act's exemption for employees covered by a written contract of employment for a specified term. The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that when such a contract includes an at-will termination provision, it does not constitute a contract for a specific term under the statute because the at-will clause overrides the definite employment period, so the Act's protections remain available.

labor & employment