John C. Sheehy

In Spencer v. Ukra, plaintiff Shirley Spencer sued defendants B.J. Ukra and associates, a California-based business management and tax consulting firm, in Montana state court, and the defendants were served in California. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction under Montana's long-arm statute, finding exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendants had made a general appearance by filing a motion to set aside a default judgment and a notice of appearance without raising or preserving any objection to personal jurisdiction. Because this initial general appearance submitted the defendants to the court's jurisdiction and waived defects in service, the dismissal was improper.

procedure

The case involved a dispute between property owner Richard Sharon and holders of an irrigation ditch easement across his land, where Sharon sought to enjoin the defendants from using heavy equipment, constructing a roadway along the ditch, and installing gates, claiming unreasonable burden on his servient tenement, while also requesting attorney fees under Montana Code § 70-17-112. The defendants counterclaimed for adjudication of their secondary easement rights under the same statute and for attorney fees. The district court ruled entirely in favor of the defendants, recognizing their secondary easement along the east bank for maintenance and access, denying the injunction and damages, and ordering each party to bear their own costs. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court held that the defendants, as the prevailing party who successfully enforced their easement rights against impairment, were entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees under § 70-17-112(5), MCA, including on appeal, reversing the district court's denial of fees. The core reasoning was that the defendants enforced subsections (1) and (2) of the statute by obtaining judicial confirmation of their pre-existing secondary easement rights to inspect, repair, and maintain the ditch.

property

The case involved Barbara Martin, an employee terminated by Special Resource Management, Inc. (a subsidiary of Entech and Montana Power Company) as part of a workforce reduction, though her position was later filled by another employee. Martin sued for wrongful discharge, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on the covenant claim, holding that it was preempted by the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act, which took effect on July 1, 1987, because Martin's termination became effective after that date. The Montana Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the cause of action accrued upon Martin's receipt of notice of termination on June 16, 1987—before the Act's effective date—because that is when the alleged breach occurred and all elements of the claim were present, allowing the claim to proceed under prior law.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, Leon Cline sued Leo Durden for negligence after a head-on snowmobile collision on a trail in the Little Belt Mountains, and Durden counterclaimed; the central factual dispute was which driver had crossed into the other's right-of-way. The jury found Cline solely at fault and awarded Durden $737,223 in damages. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in admitting the investigating deputy's opinion testimony on causation, related exhibits from Forest Service employees, Durden's medical records, or in refusing several of Cline's proposed jury instructions and special verdict form. The court reasoned that the deputy had sufficient training in accident reconstruction, that other evidence and instructions adequately covered the issues, and that any procedural omissions did not prejudice Cline. The judgment for Durden was therefore upheld.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves the dissolution of a 25-year marriage between Edgar and Charlotte Scott, focusing on the equitable distribution of marital assets including real estate, retirement plans, and personal property, as well as a request for maintenance. The Montana Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that the district court failed to properly determine the net worth of the marital estate, particularly regarding the valuation of Edgar's pension plan and other assets. The court reasoned that under Montana law, an equitable property division must precede any maintenance award, and without accurate net worth calculations, such decisions cannot be properly made. Issues like the disposition of the family home and Charlotte's inheritance were also raised but tied back to the need for proper valuation.

family lawproperty

The case involved the Montana Department of Revenue's attempt to revise assessments of mine net proceeds taxes owed by Kaiser Cement Corporation for tax years 1983, 1984, and 1985, following an audit that increased the reported values from negative or zero amounts to several hundred thousand dollars each year. Kaiser had sold its cement plant and quarry operations before the revised assessments were issued, and the State Tax Appeal Board granted Kaiser summary judgment on the ground that §15-8-601, MCA, limits reassessments to property still under the ownership or control of the same person. The District Court reversed that ruling and remanded for a decision on the merits, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's order.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory