John Warner

This case involved a dispute over stock ownership, loans, and financial obligations in Siegle, Inc., a Montana dairy farm corporation formed by Wilhelm Siegle, with claims by his son David Siegle and neighbor Sanford Helmuth regarding share transfers, promissory notes, and alleged wrongful actions. The district court had voided certain shares issued to Helmuth, ordered transfers back to an estate, found actual fraud supporting punitive damages, and required David Siegle to repay over $117,000 to the corporation, while denying attorney fees. The Montana Supreme Court reversed most of these rulings, holding that the district court erred in interpreting a stock transfer agreement as a mere pledge, in voiding stock issuances without proper basis, in finding fraud, and in ordering repayment of debts discharged in bankruptcy; it affirmed the denial of attorney fees and remanded for further proceedings on remaining issues like share valuation and debt amounts.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing a tavern under Montana's Dram Shop Act for damages from a car accident caused by an intoxicated patron who had been served alcohol there. The district court dismissed the complaint because the plaintiffs did not provide the required notice of intent to sue within 180 days under § 27-1-710(6), MCA. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, rejecting claims that the notice provision was unconstitutional special legislation under Article V, Section 12, or a violation of equal protection under Article II, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution. The court reasoned that statutes are presumed constitutional, the provision creates a reasonable classification for dram shop claims, and the plaintiffs failed to show it lacked a rational basis or applied unequally.

torts & liabilitycivil rights

Delaney & Company sued the City of Bozeman alleging constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage after the city purchased land that Delaney had been negotiating to acquire and develop into an industrial park that could include a waste transfer station. As a sanction for discovery abuse, the district court ruled the city liable to Delaney, and following a jury trial on damages the court entered a $3,000,000 judgment for lost profits. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the statutory $750,000 governmental liability cap did not apply, that the liability sanction included causation, and that the jury instructions and expert testimony regarding lost profits were not erroneous.

torts & liabilityproperty

John Talmage, owner of an aircraft maintenance and fueling business next to the Kalispell City Airport, sued the City of Kalispell and its Airport Advisory Board after the city built a security fence with a 48-foot gate that Talmage claimed restricted access to his property, which was subject to a deed restriction limiting its use to airport operations. Talmage alleged unreasonable interference with an easement, tortious interference with business prospects, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, but the Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether the gate provided reasonable access and whether the city's actions, including removal of a taxiway, tortiously interfered with Talmage's business and easement. The court applied de novo review under M. R. Civ. P. 56 and determined that evidence from Talmage's affidavits and documented incidents raised factual disputes precluding summary judgment.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a grandmother's petition for primary custody and parenting rights over her two grandchildren following their father's death and temporary state involvement with their mother due to health issues. The mother moved to dismiss, arguing the grandmother lacked standing under Montana law because no ongoing dependency proceeding existed, and later challenged the alternative request for grandparent visitation. The district court dismissed the custody petition but granted limited court-ordered contact with the children, and it denied the mother's request for attorney fees. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing, upheld the visitation order as consistent with statutory requirements for grandparent contact, and affirmed the denial of fees, finding no error in the lower court's handling of the proceedings despite partial dissents on the visitation and sanctions issues.

family law

This case involved the dissolution of a common-law marriage between Delia Kelly and Joseph Thompson and the division of their marital estate. The district court determined that the marriage began in February 2005 based on a letter in which Thompson referred to Kelly as his wife, rather than in 1988 as Thompson claimed, and it included only a limited portion of certain real properties in the marital estate after finding that Kelly's parents gifted them solely to her and that the parties' contributions had not significantly enhanced their value beyond market appreciation. Thompson appealed, arguing errors in the marriage start date and in the valuation and allocation of properties such as the 35th Street residence, Garfield property, and Kootenai Creek property. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's factual findings on the marriage date and property contributions were not clearly erroneous and that its distribution of the estate did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

family lawproperty