Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Employee was injured while working for Employer. Because Employer failed to retain current worker's compensation insurance, Employee filed a claim with the Uninsured Employer's Fund, which the Fund accepted. The Fund sought indemnity from Employer for Employee's damages, and the parties agreed to an interim payment plan. However, the Fund ultimately turned Employer over to collection. Employer responded by suing the Fund for breach of contract. The district court granted Employer's summary judgment motion on the issue of whether the Fund had breached the repayment agreement. The district court then awarded damages to Employer in the amount of $198,749. The damages awarded largely centered on the court's implicit conclusion that the Fund's actions had interfered with Employer's ability to obtain financing, which, in turn, hurt Employer's sales. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly (1) determined Employer was entitled to summary judgment on the question of whether the Fund had breached the payment plan agreement; (2) determined Employer could receive consequential damages for the Fund's breach of contract; (3) denied the Fund's motion for post-trial relief; (3) calculated damages; and (4) denied Employer's damage claim for ten years of lost profits. View "Elk Mountain Motor Sports, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus." on Justia Law

Johnson Farms, Inc. and Floyd Johnson filed a complaint against Ethel Halland alleging (1) in her capacity as secretary of Johnson Farms, Inc., Ethel breached her fiduciary duties by diverting corporate funds to herself and others; and (2) Ethel conferred gifts to herself and other family members in contravention of a written trust agreement. The district court granted Ethel's motion for summary judgment, finding that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not toll the statute of limitations. The district court also awarded Ethel attorneys' fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Johnson's claims were barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) the district court did not err in awarding Ethel attorneys' fees and costs. View "Johnson Farms, Inc. v. Halland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a judicial resolution of an LLC in which both Plaintiffs and Defendants held ownership interests. The district court ordered judicial dissolution and appointment of a receiver after finding that the managing member of the LLC, one of the defendants, had never operated the LLC in conformity with the operating agreement and had acted in a manner that was unduly prejudicial to Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there were substantial undisputed facts to support the district court's order for dissolution under Mont. Code Ann. 35-8-902(1), and the district court properly applied the statute; and (2) the district court properly denied Defendants' motion to amend their answer to add counterclaims because Defendants were required to arbitrate such claims under the operating agreement. View "Gordon v. Kuzara" on Justia Law

Pro se litigant Sharon McCrea appealed a district court's judgment that awarded over eight thousand dollars to CBM Collections, a Missoula collection agency. McCrea owned a business which had an outstanding credit card bill with the Missoula Federal Credit Union (MFCU). She was notified that the debts were being assigned to CBM for collection. CBM subsequently filed its complaint to seek the full amount owned plus interest. McCrea answered, arguing that MFCU was unfairly and deliberately targeting her for collection and that the matter should be "remanded" to the credit union so that she could continue making incremental payments. McCrea did not deny owing the debts. She sought discovery of credit card statements and cell phone billing statements to establish she had been in regular contact with MFCU in an attempt to resolve the matter. The district court granted CBM's motion for judgment on the pleadings without ruling on McCrea's discovery request and entered the award. Finding no error in the district court's ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "CBI Inc. v. McCrea" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant John Dilley appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City of Missoula. The district court concluded the City acted within its legal authority when it purchased the Missoula Civic Stadium with tax increment financing (TIF) funds designated for urban renewal. The stadium was originally planned and developed by Play Ball Missoula, Inc. (Play Ball), a volunteer, non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of bringing a minor league baseball team to Missoula. In 2000, Play Ball and the City entered a development agreement that permitted Play Ball to finance and construct a stadium on blighted City property and later convey the facility to the City. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed suit prior to the City's acquisition of the stadium, alleging the planned purchase using TIF funds was an "illegal payoff of private enterprise debt." On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erroneously failed to specify which provision under Title 7, Chapter 15, Part 42 of the Montana Code that permitted the "payoff." He also argued that the City could not make such an expenditure of TIF funds simply because the practice was not prohibited by statute. Finding that the City's use of TIF money to acquire the stadium was a proper exercise of its urban renewal posers, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the City's favor. View "Dilley v. City of Missoula" on Justia Law

Petitioner Billie L. Redding asked the Supreme Court to exercise supervisory control over the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, and to conclude it was error for the District Court to grant partial summary judgment to Defendants Timothy Janiak; Anderson ZurMuehlen & Co., P.C.; Ray E. Petersen; and Rick Ahmann. Petitioner's case arose from a series of real estate transactions by which she sold her property to Defendants for which she would receive payments from them which would serve as her monthly income. The scheme by which Defendants paid Petitioner and their other real estate clients collapsed in 2008 (as a Ponzi scheme), and they filed for bankruptcy. Petitioner sued, alleging: (1) unlawful sale of securities; (2) negligence; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) breach of contract; and (6) tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Petitioner sought damages in the amount of $4,635,485.51, plus additional amounts for punitive damages, emotional distress, loss of established course of life, and consequential damages. Petitioner moved for summary judgment on several issues, the only issue before the Court was whether the "investments" Petitioner made with Defendants qualified as "securities" under the state Securities Act. The district court found that Petitioner "did not engage in a common enterprise," an essential element of an investment contract (i.e. a security), because she "did not share the risks of the investment with other investors because she agreed upon a contractually set return on her investment." Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that supervisory control was appropriate in this case and that the real estate transactions in question here were indeed securities. Accordingly the Court granted Petitioner's request for a Writ of Supervisory Control. View "Redding v. Montana 1st Jud. District" on Justia Law

Appellants James J. and Linda L. Clark appealed a district court order that approved the filing of an amended certificate of survey, approved a settled agreement, and required each party to pay one-half of the fees and costs relative to a surveyor agreed upon by the parties. Appellees Bill and Katy Martin purchased the Fishtail General Store from Clarks in May 2000. The sewer system for the Fishtail General Store failed in July 2005. Keith Brown, a licensed Professional Engineer, designed a replacement septic wastewater disposal sewer system. The Stillwater County Health Department issued a replacement sewer system permit, and the Martins installed the new sewer system north of the Fishtail General Store on "Tract 2-A." A number of unresolved issues remained between Clarks and Martins. Clarks and Martins ultimately jointly petitioned to relocate the boundary lines between Tract 2-A and property owned by Clarks. The District Court approved the boundary line relocation. This relocation reduced the size of Tract 2-A. The new sewer system failed again in 2009. Martins requested that Clarks allow Martins to use land located outside the adjusted boundary line to install the two additional laterals. Clarks refused. Martins filed a motion pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) for relief from the district court’s order of June 7, 2006 that had approved the boundary line relocation. The parties advised the District Court at the conclusion of a pre-trial conference that they had reached a settlement. The court ordered the parties to hire Tom Kelly, a licensed surveyor, to prepare a certificate of survey that would implement the Septic System Easement Agreement. Martins then filed a motion asking the court to approve a Corrected Tract 2-A Amended Certificate of Survey prepared by Kelly. Clarks argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the District Court incorrectly determined that the Corrected Tract 2-A'a Amended COS did not change the boundaries between the Clarks’ and Martins’ tracts. Clarks further contended that the District Court improperly concluded that Martins’ proposed septic system agreement accurately reflected the agreement of the parties. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the district court record to support the court's ultimate decision in this case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Clark v. Martin" on Justia Law

Glacier Kitchens, Inc., CR Weaver Trust, and the Estate of Grace Weaver (collectively "Defendants") appealed the denial of their motion to set aside the default judgments issued against them in district court. Weaver filed a complaint against Plaintiff Mountain West Bank (MWB) alleging breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. MWB filed its answer and counterclaim for judicial foreclosure. MWB attempted to serve the Defendants at the residence of Weaver by personally serving Weaver’s daughter Elizabeth Weaver (Elizabeth). Elizabeth bore no relationship to the Defendants, other than she is Weaver’s daughter. Weaver filed a pro se answer to MWB’s counterclaim as it related to him. The Defendants failed to file an answer or otherwise appear. As a result, MWB applied for entries of default against them. Weaver filed a pro se motion to set aside the judgments against Defendants. In his motion, Weaver noted that Elizabeth was not legally qualified to accept service on behalf of the Defendants. MWB objected and argued that Weaver had failed to explain why Elizabeth was not authorized to accept service on behalf of the Defendants. MWB additionally contended that Weaver, as a non-attorney, could not appear on behalf of the Defendants. The Supreme Court dismissed Weaver's appeal without prejudice due to the fact that as a pro se appellant, Weaver was unable to bring an appeal on behalf of the Defendants. Defendants through counsel made a motion to set aside the default judgments arguing MWB's alleged faulty service. The Defendants' motion to set aside the default judgments was deemed denied pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (2009) when the District Court failed to rule on them within 60 days. It is from that denial that the Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred when it failed to set aside the default judgments issued against Defendants due to the problem with service. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mtn. West v. Glacier Kitchens, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellees, Kristine Kittleson and James Kurtzenacker, purchased property pursuant to a warranty deed that referenced surveys conducted by Davis Surveying. Appellants, Davis Surveying and Kenneth Davis claimed they had nothing to do with Appellees until after they had purchased their property. Appellees sued Appellants, alleging negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of contract based on a third-party beneficiary theory and claiming that because of Clark's incorrect flagging, they trespassed on neighboring property and needed to remove part of their landscaping and construction work. The district court held that Appellants were liable for breach of contract under a third-party beneficiary theory and for negligent misrepresentation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in determining that Appellees were third-party beneficiaries of a contract for a prior survey, but while the court erred in this reasoning, it reached the right result under Appellees' negligent misrepresentation claim; (2) the court did not err in determining that Appellees were entitled to damages based on negligent misrepresentation; and (3) there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the court's determination that Davis was personally liable to Appellees for work done by Davis Surveying. View "Krutzenacker v. Davis Surveying, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants, three licensed clinic psychologists, were former partners of Great Falls Clinic, LLP, a general limited liability partnership comprised of medical professionals. The Clinic partners, including Appellants, signed a partnership agreement stating that a partner who separates from the partnership in compliance with the agreement's terms will receive a partnership interest subject to reduction for competing after withdrawal or retirement. Appellants subsequently separated from the Clinic and filed a declaratory judgment action when the Clinic refused to pay them their full partnership interest payments. At issue was whether the agreement's restriction, which applied to those engaged in the "practice of medicine," included partners who practiced psychology after separating from the Clinic. The district court granted summary judgment for the Clinic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) holding that the Appellants engage in the "practice of medicine" as used in the partnership agreement; and (2) concluding that the parties' intention regarding the term "practice of medicine" in the language of the agreement was to include the psychologists.