Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

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.

Lila Clavin (Lila) and Robert Gilbert founded Pastimes and executed an operating agreement (Agreement) that provided that Pastimes would terminate upon the death of a member unless at least two members remained who agreed to continue the business. After Lila died in 2000, Gilbert and Tim Clavin, Lila's son, could not agree on the value of Lila's share of Pastimes at the time of her death. This disagreement led Tim and Gilbert to conclude that Gilbert should continue to operate Pastimes. Gilbert filed a complaint for declaratory relief on behalf of Pastimes in 2005, requesting a date-of-death valuation for Lila's interest in 2005. The district court valued the Estate's interest at the date of trial rather than at the time of Lila's death. The Supreme Court affirmed in relevant part, holding that the district court properly valued the Estate's interest at the date of trial rather than at the time of Lila's death because Gilbert's and Tim's agreement and Gilbert's continued operation of Pastimes constituted a fully executed oral agreement that modified the dissolution provision of the Agreement.

Burglington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Company (BNSF) contaminated the environment surrounding the Livingston Rail Yard (Yard). Plaintiffs, individuals who owned property adjacent to the Yard, sued BNSF in federal court for damages to their property based on claims of, inter alia, nuisance, negligence, and trespass. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment in favor of BNSF, finding that the applicable statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs' claims. The federal district court certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether the continuing tort doctrine should apply to the claims presented by Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held (1) the continuing tort doctrine in Montana tolls the statute of limitations for property damage claims of nuisance and/or trespass resulting from contamination that has stabilized, continues to migrate, and is not readily or easily abatable; and (2) the limitations period begins to run when abatement is not reasonable or complete abatement cannot be achieved, and a permanent injury exists.

Plaintiffs, Western Tradition Partnership (WTP), Champion Painting, and Montana Shooting Sports Foundation (MSSF), sued the Montana Attorney General and the Commissioner of Political Practices, seeking a declaration that Mont. Code Ann. 13-35-227(1) violated their freedom of speech protected by the state and federal Constitutions by prohibiting political expenditures by corporations on behalf of or opposing candidates for public office. The district court declared the statute unconstitutional, granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs, enjoined enforcement of the statute, and denied the motion of Champion and MSSF for an award of attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed and entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants after applying the principles enunciated in Citizens United v. F.E.C., holding that Montana has a compelling interest to impose the challenged rationally-tailored statutory restrictions.

Campbell Farming Corporation had its shares controlled by three shareholders: Stephanie Gately controlled fifty-one percent of the shares, and H. Robert Warren and Joan Crocker controlled the remaining forty-nine percent. Stephanie awarded her son, Robert Gately, who was president of the company, a bonus after a vote by the shareholders. Warren and Crocker filed a derivative and direct action against the company and the Gatelys in federal district court seeking to void the bonus. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court accepted certification from the Tenth Circuit to answer several questions and held (1) the safe harbor provision of Mont. Code Ann. 35-1-462(2)(c) can be extended to cover a conflict-of-interest transaction involving a bonus that lacks consideration and would be void under Montana common law; (2) the business judgment rule does not apply to situations involving a director's conflict-of-interest transaction; and (3) the holding in Daniels v. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins does not apply to the claim challenging Stephanie's role in the director conflict of interest transaction, but the Daniels test does apply to the claim of breach of fiduciary duties alleged by the minority shareholders against Stephanie in her capacity as majority shareholder.

Husband and Wife entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA) pursuant to their divorce in which Wife transferred all of her interest in two corporations the parties owned to Husband in exchange for Husband's payment to Wife of $250,000. The parties subsequently agreed that Wife would assume managerial and operational control of the businesses. The district court ordered Husband to provide Wife with access to the businesses' accounts and financial information and to return possession of the business records. Because of Husband's noncompliance with the court order, Wife ultimately was forced to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The district court subsequently (1) found Husband to be in contempt, (2) awarded Wife sole possession of one of the businesses, (3) ordered Husband to pay Wife the receiver fees he had accumulated during his operation of the business, and (4) ordered Husband to pay Wife's attorney's fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not (1) err by refusing to send the dispute to arbitration and by holding Husband in contempt; (2) deny Husband due process; and (3) err in awarding attorney's fees to Wife. Remanded for a determination of Wife's attorney's fees and costs on appeal.