Jean A. Turnage

The case concerned whether real estate brokers Ted Topolski and Bill Walker, members of the Helena Association of Realtors, could be compelled to arbitrate a dispute with nonmember client Clare Kendall over a real estate transaction. The district court granted summary judgment to the Association, ruling that the brokers were bound to arbitrate under the terms of their membership and the REALTORS Code of Ethics. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the membership agreements required arbitration of such disputes and that Montana's statutory limits on arbitration agreements did not bar enforcement here. The court reasoned that the Association's bylaws and code, to which the members had agreed, extended to disputes with nonmembers who consented to arbitration, and federal law supported the validity of the agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Simmons, defendant Brian Paul Simmons was arrested for DUI in Montana and moved to suppress results of his breath test and his statements to police, arguing that the state's Implied Consent Advisory gave misleading information about license consequences for out-of-state drivers who refuse testing and that he had invoked his right to counsel during Miranda warnings. The district court denied the motion, Simmons pled guilty while reserving the right to appeal, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that any inaccuracies in the advisory did not invalidate the consent or require suppression of the test results and that Simmons had clarified he did not wish to have an attorney present before answering questions. The decision rested on the conclusion that the defendant had validly consented to testing and had waived counsel after initial confusion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over nursing home insurance benefits after the insurer, Bankers Life, rescinded a policy issued to Jack Steinback and denied a claim following his admission to a nursing home. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the breach of contract claim. The court held that the policy application contained a material misrepresentation because the Steinbacks answered "no" to a question about prior treatment for memory loss or organic brain disorder, even though Mr. Steinback had been treated for moderate to severe organic brain deficit and possible Alzheimer's shortly before applying. Because this undisclosed information would have led the insurer to deny coverage, the misrepresentation justified rescission of the policy.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In Hall v. Heckerman, Glenn and Ada Hall sued Doris Heckerman seeking a declaratory judgment establishing an easement by necessity or prescription over her land to access their property, which they had purchased in 1976 and which was landlocked from public roads. The District Court dismissed the action, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that res judicata barred the suit because the Halls had previously prevailed in a 1996 quiet title action against Heckerman and others involving the same tract and easement issues. The core reasoning was that the Halls had constructive notice of the relevant deeds at the time of the prior litigation and could have raised their current claims then, so the issues and subject matter were the same.

propertyprocedure

In Pengra v. State, Steve Pengra sued the Montana Department of Corrections for negligence that allegedly resulted in the rape and murder of his wife by a probationer, and the parties reached a settlement before trial. Pengra sought to seal the settlement agreement, citing privacy rights for himself and his minor daughter, while news organizations intervened to oppose sealing on grounds of the public's right to know. The district court denied the motion to seal, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that § 2-9-303, MCA, mandates that all settlements of claims against the State be available for public inspection without exception for individual privacy interests. The court reasoned that the statute's language is mandatory and does not permit balancing privacy against the constitutional right to know in this context. The court also addressed but did not grant the cross-appeal regarding attorney fees for the intervenors.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Swan, the defendant was convicted by a jury in Montana district court of deliberate homicide in the 1997 death of Ginny Hann, whose body was found near Missoula with evidence linking Swan, including DNA, hair, fibers, and shoe prints. Swan appealed his conviction, claiming he was denied his constitutional right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Montana Constitution to waive counsel and represent himself at trial after initially requesting to do so while also seeking law library access and new appointed counsel. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Swan's request to represent himself was not unequivocal because the record showed he primarily sought substitute counsel and library privileges rather than proceeding pro se, and he did not renew the self-representation request after receiving new counsel. The court reasoned that an unequivocal waiver is required to prevent defendants from manipulating the mutual exclusivity of the rights to counsel and self-representation, and the trial court properly denied the equivocal request.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Stephanie Nicole Janow sued Conoco Pipe Line Company and Yellowstone Pipe Line Company in Montana's Fourth Judicial District Court in 1996, alleging that the companies negligently allowed fuel to leak from a pipeline onto her property. She served the defendants in May 1999 and filed proof of service on May 25, 1999, more than three years after commencing the action. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P. (1999), which required proof of service to be filed within three years. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the rule mandated dismissal for noncompliance and that a subsequent rule change did not alter the outcome, as the plaintiff failed to meet the deadline despite prior precedent enforcing strict adherence.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

In State v. Golder, the defendant was charged in justice court with driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to carry proof of insurance, and driving while his license was suspended. After the justice court excluded two of the State's witnesses for untimely disclosure, Golder was convicted; on appeal to district court for a trial de novo, he moved in limine to suppress those witnesses' testimony on grounds of unfair surprise under Montana's discovery rules, but the district court denied the motion and Golder pled guilty while preserving the issue. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing sanctions because the record showed no willful noncompliance by the State and no resulting prejudice or undue surprise to Golder. The Court noted that § 46-15-329, MCA, makes sanctions discretionary and that the purpose of discovery is to enhance the search for truth rather than to punish technical violations.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Katie Onstad sued her employer Payless ShoeSource after being sexually assaulted by a stranger while working alone at a store in Billings, Montana, alleging the company negligently failed to warn her of prior similar incidents or implement adequate safety measures. A jury awarded her $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the verdict, holding that the workers' compensation exclusive remedy defense did not apply, that the evidence supported the damage awards, and that any errors in jury instructions or testimony did not require reversal. The court reasoned that Payless had notice of the risk based on prior incidents but took no precautions, supporting findings of negligence and indifference warranting punitive damages.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over ownership of an independent Melaleuca marketing business formerly held by Ruth Johnson. Patricia Hedges claimed title based on a pre-death written transfer from Johnson, while Vince and Barbara Woodhouse, as co-personal representatives of Johnson's estate, asserted ownership through a residuary clause in her will. The underlying Melaleuca agreement required the company's written approval and specific forms for any lifetime transfer of the business, which were not obtained for the assignment to Hedges. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the Woodhouses, ruling the assignment invalid due to noncompliance with the contract terms. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Montana law enforces such contractual restrictions on assignment and that the failure to meet them rendered Hedges' claim invalid.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Rob Grabow, a high school senior who challenged the Montana High School Association's (MHSA) application of its Eight Consecutive Semester Rule, which rendered him ineligible to play basketball for the 1999-2000 season based on his prior school transfers and time abroad as an exchange student. Grabow had obtained assurances of eligibility upon enrolling at Park High School but was later barred by MHSA; he sued for a preliminary injunction and declaratory relief in district court, which denied the injunction. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court dismissed the matter as moot because the basketball season had concluded and Grabow had participated under a temporary injunction during the appeal, while remanding for further proceedings on the underlying declaratory judgment claim. The court reasoned that the preliminary injunction request was no longer a live controversy and that related issues, such as attorney fees and the non-delegation doctrine, were premature until final judgment on the merits.

civil rightsprocedure

In Greenup v. Russell, Calvin Greenup sued Robert and Peggy Russell over real property in Ravalli County, Montana, alleging breach of a contract that supposedly allowed the Greenups to retain ownership after conveying the land to the Russells in 1996 under bank foreclosure pressure; he sought damages and to set aside the conveyance for lack of consideration. The Russells had previously obtained a default judgment in 1997 declaring that the Greenups held no interest in the property, after which they took possession. The District Court dismissed the new action under res judicata and denied Greenup's motion to set aside the prior default judgment. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the motion to set aside was untimely under Rule 60(b) because it was filed more than 60 days after the judgment and that the identical issues, parties, and subject matter had already been litigated in the earlier action. The court also denied the Russells' request for attorney fees on appeal.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over ownership of approximately $204,000 in cash that F. Morris Silver placed in a safe deposit box shortly before his death, with his adult son Jack Silver named as a joint signer on the lease. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the cash belonged to Morris's estate rather than to Jack. The court held that the lease agreement permitted Jack access to the box but did not convey ownership of its contents or create joint tenancy under § 70-1-308, MCA, and that no valid inter vivos gift had occurred. Jack's removal of the funds without Morris's knowledge or consent eight days before Morris died was therefore unauthorized, and the cash remained an asset of the estate to be distributed according to Morris's will.

propertyfamily law

In State v. Rosales, the defendant moved to amend his sentence for felony assault and a weapons enhancement under § 46-18-221, MCA, arguing that a recent decision in State v. Guillaume rendered the enhancement unconstitutional on double jeopardy grounds. The district court dismissed the motion as barred by the five-year statute of limitations for postconviction relief under § 46-21-102, MCA. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional limit that is waived only in cases of clear miscarriage of justice, which was not present here as the facts did not match the unique exception recognized in State v. Perry. The court declined to consider arguments about retroactive application of the law.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Smith, the defendant was convicted in a bench trial of felony assault and assault on a peace officer after shooting a man during a fight and later pointing a gun at an officer attempting to arrest him. The district court imposed consecutive ten-year prison terms for each conviction plus additional ten-year enhancements for weapon use, and rejected Smith's defense that he suffered from a mental disease or defect preventing him from appreciating the criminality of his conduct. On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, the convictions and overall prison term were upheld, but the weapon enhancements were vacated. The court reasoned that the enhancements violated double jeopardy by punishing the same conduct twice and that, even assuming a mental condition existed, it did not meet the statutory requirement of rendering Smith unable to conform his behavior to the law.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Halvorson, the defendant pled guilty to driving with a suspended license after a deputy sheriff stopped her vehicle based on recognizing its personalized plate from a prior DUI arrest that had led to a six-month suspension. She moved to dismiss the charge, arguing the stop lacked the particularized suspicion required under Montana law for an investigative traffic stop. The district court denied the motion, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officer's knowledge of the owner's suspended license, together with observing a female driver matching the owner's description and no contrary facts, satisfied the objective data and resulting suspicion standards under the totality of circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs injured in a 1996 rear-end motor vehicle collision on a Montana highway, caused when an employee of K.G. Paving drove a truck transporting equipment. The plaintiffs sued the employer and its commercial general liability insurer, claiming coverage for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and failure to warn despite policy exclusions for injuries arising out of motor vehicle use. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, concluding that the policy's exclusionary language was ambiguous and did not clearly bar claims based on independent theories of negligence. The court construed the ambiguities in favor of coverage, following a minority approach that focuses on the specific liability theory rather than the underlying cause of the injury.

torts & liability

Madison River R.V. Ltd. applied to the Town of Ennis for preliminary plat approval to develop a 73-space RV park but the Town Council denied the application following a planning board hearing and its own proceedings, citing incomplete materials, conflicts with the comprehensive plan, sewer system impacts, and traffic safety. The district court upheld the denial and dismissed an inverse condemnation claim, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that a council member's participation did not create reversible error, the written findings were timely filed under statute, the denial was supported by the record, and no taking occurred because the property retained economically beneficial uses. The decision rested on compliance with Montana subdivision review statutes and takings precedent limiting claims to total deprivations of value.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Larry K. Brown, who was arrested following a bar brawl and convicted of two counts of felony assault on a peace officer. Brown appealed his conviction from the Fifth Judicial District Court, raising three issues: whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for lack of a timely probable cause hearing after arrest, whether the court's comments about his absent co-defendant prejudiced the jury, and whether the court improperly allowed a prospective juror with personal connections to the case to remain on the panel. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It reasoned that Brown had failed to properly preserve the issues for appeal by not raising timely objections at trial, including by not challenging the juror for cause.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John Art Benson, who was charged with felony theft after allegedly stealing and butchering a neighbor's cow. A jury convicted him of theft, leading to a suspended five-year prison sentence. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence from the cow's remains matching the neighbor's description, including branding and spaying indicators. The court also held that admitting livestock sale records not disclosed before trial was not reversible error, as the evidence was cumulative and caused no prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure