On June 11, 2021, Kevin Earl Morris was found guilty of one count of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent and one count of Solicitation of Tampering with Physical Evidence. Morris now appeals the Eighth Judicial District Court’s rulings on rape shield evidence and a discovery sanction. Morris also appeals the District Court’s imposed probation conditions concerning his contact with minors. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether the District Court correctly applied § 45 5 511, MCA, to preclude Morris from presenting evidence related to the victim’s past sexual history and past reports of rape.
Issue Two: Whether the District Court correctly imposed probation conditions that restricted Morris’ contact with minors.
Alan Peter Twardoski appeals the October 26, 2022 Amended Judgment and Commitment Order of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, following his felony convictions for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent and Sexual Assault, in violation of §§ 45-5-503 and -502, MCA. We restate and address the following issues:
Issue 1: Whether Twardoski received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to statistical expert testimony.
Issue 2: Whether the District Court’s imposition of a more severe sentence after retrial on remand violated Twardoski’s right to due process.
We affirm.
Kris Hawkins, a self-represented litigant, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the Olson Trust as a trustee (collectively Hawkins) appeals from the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court’s April 24, 2025 Order denying her motion to disqualify Northwestern Corporation’s (Northwestern) counsel, granting Northwestern’s motion to strike the joinder of Terry Wallace as a plaintiff, and granting Northwestern’s September 2024 motion to dismiss. Hawkins only appeals the Order to the extent that it did not allow Hawkins to join Wallace as a plaintiff and dismissed the case. We affirm.
Dennis and Jeannette Burton (Burtons) appeal the order entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Flathead Conservation District (FCD), and upheld the FCD’s denial of Burtons’ application for a “310 permit” to undertake work on their property along the Flathead River. We affirm, and consider:
Whether the District Court erred by granting the FCD’s motion for summary judgment upholding the FCD’s denial of Burtons’ application for a 310 permit.
Tracy Smith appeals pro se from two orders of the Montana First Judicial District Court. The first affirmed the Lewis and Clark County Justice Court of Record’s dismissal of Smith’s covenant-enforcement action against Lourdes Russell. The second affirmed the Justice Court’s attorney fee and cost sanction against Smith. Russell requests appellate sanctions and a remand for determination of the attorney fees and costs she incurred responding to this appeal. We affirm both District Court orders and decline to impose sanctions.
Appellants Edward Kahle and Catherine Kahle (Kahles) appeal from the June 26, 2025 Judgment entered in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, in favor of the Estate of Florence Tosch (Estate) for an amount of $331,121.40. The District Court concluded that the Kahles are liable to the Estate for damages under the Montana Residential Landlord Tenant Act (MRLTA); damages arising from fraud and deceit and slander of title; and a declarative judgment ruling a purported 2019 lease with option to purchase (2019 Lease/Option) is void ab initio. We affirm.
We restate the dispositive issues as follows:
1. Whether by clear and convincing evidence the Estate established that the Kahles acted with actual fraud as defined under § 27-1-221, MCA.
2. Whether the Estate properly followed the MRLTA in its post-eviction dealings with the Kahles.
3. Whether the District Court correctly determined damages caused by the Kahles’ forgery of the 2019 Lease/Option and slander of title.
4. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when awarding the Estate its attorney’s fees.
Taralyn DeCock (Taralyn) appeals from the August 25, 2025 deemed denial of her M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution ordered by the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, on February 25, 2025. Taralyn asserts the District Court’s deemed denial of her Rule 60 motion was an abuse of discretion and that she is entitled to relief on account of the gross neglect of her prior counsel. Specifically, Taralyn argues that counsel failed to provide her with information regarding her spouse’s retirement assets prior to mediation, which resulted in a distribution of assets that “shocks the conscience.” Additionally, Taralyn argues the District Court’s October 31, 2024 order denying her motion to rescind the Marital and Property Distribution Agreement (MPSA) constitutes reversible error, as the agreement was unconscionable. Further, Taralyn asserts the District Court failed to fulfill its statutory duty to ensure an equitable distribution of assets when it adopted the MPSA into its final decree of dissolution. Taralyn, however, filed her Notice of Appeal on August 29, 2025, 185 days after the District Court issued its final decree of dissolution. While her appeal is timely as to the denial of her Rule 60 motion, her appeal of the District Court’s final decree of dissolution is not. Accordingly, we restate the sole issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it denied Taralyn’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
George and Irene Tuma (the Tumas) appeal from the October 16, 2025 Order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granting partial summary judgment in favor of Adam and Amber Britt (the Britts). The court concluded that the 2018 Assignment and Second Amendment of Lease (Second Lease Amendment) was ambiguous as to whether it removed all of Section 5 of the 1992 Lease Agreement and Option to Purchase (1992 Lease), and, after considering extrinsic evidence of the contracting parties’ intent, held that the Britts retained a vested right to acquire an undivided tenancy in common interest in the Parent Tract, with exclusive use of the 10.325 acre leasehold. The court ordered the Tumas to execute a quitclaim deed conveying a 27.5% tenancy in common interest to the Britts. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the District Court correctly determined that the Second Lease Amendment is ambiguous.
2. Whether the District Court correctly considered extrinsic evidence of the contracting parties’ intent to conclude that the Britts purchased an undivided tenancy in common interest in the Parent Tract.
3. Whether the District Court properly evaluated Don Hostak’s testimony in concluding that the Britts retained the ability to acquire the tenancy in common interest.
Terry Lee Hagberg (Hagberg) appeals the July 2023 judgment and sentence of the Montana Sixteenth Judicial District Court for Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI) (4th or subsequent), a felony in violation of § 61 8 1002(1)(b), MCA (2021). Hagberg challenges only one aspect of the judgment: the imposition of a $5,000 fine required by § 61 8 1008, MCA (2021). We affirm the imposition of the $5,000 fine and remand for a determination of Hagberg’s ability to pay.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether Hagberg waived his right to appellate review of a fine imposed by the District Court when he agreed to the fine in his plea agreement and at sentencing.
Issue Two: Whether the District Court erred by imposing a $5,000 mandatory minimum fine pursuant to § 61 8 1008, MCA, and suspending $2,500 of the fine.
On July 16, 2024, Lisa Rene Johnson (Johnson) was convicted of misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration of 0.08 or More, 1st offense, in violation of § 61-8-1002(1)(b), MCA, following a jury trial in the Gallatin County Municipal Court. Johnson appealed the Municipal Court’s denial of three motions to suppress evidence to the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. On January 29, 2025, the District Court affirmed. We affirm.
The Cook-Reynolds Partnership and Linda Reynolds (collectively, the Partnership or CRP) appeal the Twelfth Judicial District Court’s denial of their M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking relief from an Idaho judgment registered in Montana. We restate and address the following issue:
Whether the District Court erred by denying the Partnership’s motion for Rule 60(b)(4) relief from a foreign judgment.
We reverse.
On March 31, 2025, the District Court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The court dismissed Williams’s trespass and MCPA claims, awarded him $35,000 on his negligence claim for the patio-related repairs, and dismissed the remaining negligence theories.
On appeal from a bench trial, this Court reviews the district court’s findings of fact for clear error.
Appellant Davys Arrington (Arrington) appeals the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Respondent’s Notice of Intent to Move and Motion to Amend Final Parenting Plan issued by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, on June 23, 2025.
Arrington asserts the District Court: (1) abused its discretion in adopting the parenting plan proposed by Petitioner Dustin Weidenkeller (Father) in the event Arrington moves to Idaho; (2) violated Arrington’s constitutional right to travel; (3) abused its discretion by relying on incomplete findings, making conclusions without related findings, admitting hearsay, and missing the balance of the parties’ interests; and (4) abused its discretion by denying relief from judgment and treating the case as consolidated with a related case without an order of consolidation. We affirm.
Appellant Davys Arrington (Arrington) appeals the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Respondent’s Notice of Intent to Move and Motion to Amend Parenting Plan issued by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, on June 23, 2025.
Arrington asserts the District Court: (1) abused its discretion in adopting the parenting plan proposed by Petitioner Thomas Gambardella (Father) in the event Arrington moves to Idaho; (2) violated Arrington’s constitutional right to travel; (3) abused its discretion by relying on incomplete findings, making conclusions without related findings, admitting hearsay, and missing the balance of the parties’ interests; and (4) abused its discretion by denying relief from judgment and treating the case as consolidated with a related case without an order of consolidation. We affirm.
Dan Patrick McCaul (McCaul) appeals from the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, issued by the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, on November 26, 2025. On June 25, 2026, McCaul filed a separate motion entitled Emergency Motion to Clarify Procedural Posture and Preserve Appellant’s Rights. In his motion, he asserts he will be represented by new legal counsel, that extraordinary circumstances exist, and requests oral argument. The motion does not set forth any emergency or extraordinary circumstances and largely reiterates assertions previously made in his appeal briefing. McCaul has not demonstrated circumstances requiring oral argument. The motion is denied. We affirm.
Greg Gianforte, in his official capacity as the Governor of Montana; Marta Bertoglio, in her official capacity as the Appointed Director of the Department of Commerce; and Misty Ann Giles, in her official capacity as Director of the Montana Department of Administration (collectively, the Governor), appeal the Montana First Judicial District Court’s November 2025 denial of the Governor’s motion to return the case to Judge Kathy Seeley for reassignment pursuant to Senate Bill 41 (SB 41).
We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court erred when it applied this Court’s existing judicial substitution rule, rather than Senate Bill 41 or the August 28, 2025 memorandum, after all First Judicial District judges had been substituted or had declined jurisdiction.
The State charged Edmund Alvin Adams with incest and sexual intercourse without consent after Adams’s adopted daughter, R.A., disclosed that he molested her. During its investigation, the State discovered that Adams had adopted another daughter, A.P., during his prior marriage. When contacted, A.P. disclosed that Adams also sexually abused her when she was young. The District Court permitted A.P. to testify at trial over Adams’s objection that her testimony was unfairly prejudicial. A Ravalli County jury found Adams guilty on all counts. We address the following restated issues:
1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it permitted A.P. to testify over Adams’s M. R. Evid. 403 objection?
2. Was Adams’s trial counsel ineffective?
We affirm Adams’s conviction.
DA 24-0706
Trisha Lynn Peterson appeals the Seventh Judicial District Court’s restitution order
following her plea of guilty to criminal mischief and theft by accountability. As part of her
plea, Peterson agreed to pay jointly and severally with her co-defendant, Robert Taylor, all
restitution for a dog-wash machine that she damaged during the course of her offenses.
Peterson challenges the District Court’s award of the replacement value of a new dog-wash
machine instead of its repair cost or, alternatively, the market value of the dog-wash
machine. We affirm.
Ruth Laura Edlund appeals the April 2025 order of the Montana Sixteenth Judicial
District Court, Treasure County, denying her motion for partial summary judgment and
granting the motion of Treasure County, by and through its Board of County
Commissioners (the County), for summary judgment declaring Edlund’s proposed county
ordinance invalid. We address the following restated issues:
1. Whether the District Court correctly concluded that Edlund’s proposed
ordinance was invalid under § 7-5-135, MCA.
2. Whether the District Court issued an advisory opinion.
We affirm.
L.R.H. (Mother) appeals from the termination of her parental rights to M.F. issued
July 23, 2025, by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the Department engaged in reasonable efforts to prevent removal of
M.F. and to reunite Mother with M.F.
2. Whether the District Court erred in not finding guardianship to be the preferred
permanency option and not denying the Petition for Termination.
DA 25-0673
O’Brien raises numerous issues, which we summarize and restate as follows:
1. Whether MTAB improperly considered the validity and reliability of O’Brien’s
appraisal for the first time on appeal or conducted a “trial de novo” on that
issue.
2. Whether MTAB correctly denied O’Brien’s motion for summary judgment.
3. Whether MTAB correctly construed Admin. R. M. 2.51.307(4).
4. Whether “sufficient, relevant information on income” was “made available to
the department” under § 15-8-111(5), MCA.
5. Whether MTAB correctly reversed CTAB’s decision.
Preston Bull (Preston) appeals from the decree of dissolution entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, challenging parenting and financial provisions.
Dr. David Bellamah appeals from the November 22, 2024 order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, granting defendants Dennis E. Lind, Esq., Molly K. Howard Esq., Matthew A. McKeon, Esq., and Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind, P.C.’s (hereinafter collectively “DML”) motion for summary judgment. Bellamah asserts the District Court erroneously analyzed his legal malpractice claim as a “lost appeal” claim and, as a result, ignored genuine issues of material fact which precluded summary judgment. We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in granting DML’s motion for summary judgment.
Sebastian Keitel and Avanlee Okragly filed a stipulated final parenting plan for their minor child in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court. The parenting plan contained a provision granting attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in the event of future litigation. Sebastian later sought to hold Avanlee in contempt for violating the plan’s terms. The court denied Sebastian’s motion and awarded Avanlee $14,880 for attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the motion. Sebastian claims that the District Court abused its discretion when it found that this amount was a reasonable attorney fee award. We affirm.
Appellant R.F. (Mother) appeals the order of August 18, 2025, from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, granting primary custody of R.J.F. (Child) to the foster parents and dismissing the child dependency cause. We reverse the District Court’s August 18, 2025 Order to Dismiss and remand to the District Court to strike foster parents’ Motion for Dismissal and to issue an order dismissing cause DN 23 294 based on Mother’s successful completion of her treatment plan, meeting the conditions for return, and being a fit parent.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in granting primary custody to the foster parents and dismissing the cause under § 41-3-438(3)(d), MCA.
Petitioners Transparent Election Initiative and Jeff Mangan (“TEI”), seek declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction and, pursuant to § 13-27-605(1), MCA, ask this Court to declare that the Attorney General’s ballot statement for CI-135 violates
§ 13-27-212, MCA, because it fails to provide a true and impartial explanation of the initiative and is argumentative and prejudicial. TEI further asks the Court to alter TEI’s proposed ballot statement and certify the amended ballot statement to the Montana Secretary of State immediately upon this Court’s decision on this matter. Pursuant to this Court’s Order of May 6, 2026, the Attorney General has responded to the petition.
We consider the following issues:
Issue 1. Did the Attorney General exceed his authority under § 13-27-212(1), MCA, in rewriting the ballot statement for CI-135?
Issue 2. Did the Attorney General violate § 13-27-212(1), MCA, by submitting a ballot statement that is inaccurate, argumentative, or prejudicial?
Issue 3. Shall this Court reject the Attorney General’s revised ballot statement, alter TEI’s proposed ballot statement, and certify that amended statement to the Secretary of State?
Defendant and Appellant Isaiah James Pehringer (Pehringer) appeals from the January 24, 2024 Order Following Sentence Review Hearing issued by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer County, which denied modification of Pehringer’s original sentences.
We address the following restated issue on appeal:
Whether Pehringer was denied statutory rights resulting in substantial injustice when the CCYA was not followed for nearly three years after Pehringer’s original sentences.
We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for application of the CCYA provisions with opportunity to hold a meaningful sentence review hearing after compliance therewith.
Defendant and Appellant Isaiah James Pehringer (Pehringer) appeals from the January 31, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Sentence Modification issued by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, which denied modification of Pehringer’s original sentence.
We address the following restated issue on appeal:
Whether Pehringer was denied statutory rights resulting in substantial injustice when the CCYA was not followed for nearly three years after Pehringer’s original sentence.
We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for application of the CCYA provisions with opportunity to hold a meaningful sentence review hearing after compliance therewith.
Matthew Mayfield appeals from the Order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which affirmed his misdemeanor conviction of DUI per se from municipal court for operating a noncommercial vehicle with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more under § 61-8-1002(1)(b), MCA. We reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the charge with prejudice under § 46-13-401(2), MCA.
On appeal, we address the following issue:
Whether the City demonstrated good cause under § 46-13-401(2), MCA, for the City-requested continuances that delayed Mayfield’s misdemeanor trial beyond the six-month statutory deadline.
Petitioner and Appellant Montana Academy of Salons (MAS) appeals from the January 30, 2025 Order on Petition for Judicial Review issued by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. The District Court denied the petition for judicial review filed by MAS, arising from the Final Order issued by the Montana Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists (Board). The Board’s Final Order rejected the Proposed Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law; and Recommended Order (Recommended Order) of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Hearing Officer—who presided over a multi-day hearing regarding the Board’s proposed action against MAS’s license, which recommended dismissal of the case—and ultimately issued various sanctions against MAS and placed MAS’s school license on probation for a period of five years.
We address the following dispositive issue on appeal:
Did the District Court err when it denied MAS’s petition for judicial review?
Brent Olson appeals the March 28, 2025 Judgment issued by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, following Olson’s conviction for Incest after a jury trial. The issues on appeal are:
1. Whether the District Court violated Olson’s constitutional right to present a defense and confront witnesses by excluding evidence under Montana’s rape shield statute of alternative sources for the alleged victim’s age-inappropriate sexual knowledge.
2. Whether the District Court’s rape shield rulings unreasonably and unconstitutionally restricted Olson’s right to cross-examine his accuser.
We affirm.
Spencer and Collette Melby sued Bruce and Kim Doering in the Fourth Judicial District Court when their agreement to purchase the Doerings’ property, known as Marshall Mountain, fell through. Doerings challenge the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Melbys on their breach of contract claim. The issue on appeal is whether the parties’ failure to agree to the final terms for seller financing precluded the formation of an enforceable contract under the terms of an already executed Buy-Sell Agreement. We affirm.
Clark Ryan Ramsey appeals from the June 5, 2025 Order of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, declining to relinquish jurisdiction of a child custody matter to the King William County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Virginia (Virginia JDR Court). We affirm.
Jeremy Stephen Guess appeals from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court’s July 7, 2025 Final Order of Protection. Guess does not challenge the order insofar as it protects Chelsey Mae Helt from contact, threats, harassment, abuse, stalking, or proximity by Guess. He challenges only the portions of the order that name the parties’ children as protected minor family members, place the children exclusively with Helt, and eliminate his parenting contact with the children until the parties negotiate and establish parenting time through a parenting plan.
We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion and legally erred when, in a
Title 40, chapter 15, MCA, order-of-protection proceeding, it gave Helt exclusive physical care of the children and eliminated Guess’s parenting contact with his children without making the child-specific findings required by § 40-15-204(4), MCA, and without explaining why supervised visitation would not address the safety concerns proved at the hearing.
Xena Benedetto (Benedetto) appeals from the July 31, 2025 Order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, denying her motion to vacate the filing of a foreign judgment, stay enforcement, and disqualify the petitioner’s attorney. We affirm.
In response, the Department notes that Mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA—the Children have been adjudicated youths in need of care (YINC), Mother did not successfully complete her court-approved treatment plan, and the conduct or condition rendering Mother unfit is unlikely to change in a reasonable period of time—which Mother has not challenged on appeal. Further, the Department asserts the District Court correctly determined the Department made diligent efforts to determine the Children were not Indian children under ICWA.
We state the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court correctly determined the Department made diligent efforts in determining the applicability of ICWA.
We affirm.
Sebastian Nathaniel Belcourt (Belcourt) appeals the August 9, 2023 Judgment entered in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, imposing a five-year sentence to the Montana State Prison and two six-month sentences to county detention for his convictions of strangulation of a partner or family member, unlawful restraint, and resisting arrest. On appeal, Belcourt maintains the District Court erred when it prevented him from introducing evidence of the victim’s Internet history to show he did not have the requisite mental state to commit the offense of strangulation of a partner or family member under § 45-5-215(1), MCA. More specifically, Belcourt argues that he strangled the victim to sexually arouse her rather than to impede her air or blood flow as the statute requires. Prior to trial, Belcourt moved the court for a ruling on the admissibility of the Internet history evidence. The District Court denied Belcourt’s motion in limine on March 18, 2023. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence under Mont. R. Evid. 403 of the victim’s Internet history.
John and Lisa Bradley purchased property in the Yellowstone Trails Ranch subdivision that contained an agricultural lot designation. When the Bradleys proposed to remove this designation and develop the property for residential purposes, the Yellowstone Trails Ranch Owners’ Association (YTROA or the Association) opposed their request. The Bradleys sued YTROA, seeking a judgment terminating the property’s agricultural designation. Though the court ordered default judgment for the Bradleys after YTROA failed to respond to the complaint, it later set aside the judgment on YTROA’s motion. The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion in granting the Association’s motion to set aside the default judgment. We affirm.
Jason Haler appeals from the final Order and Judgment of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, in the probate of the Estate of Bradley James Haler. The District Court concluded that funds associated with an $80,000 cashier’s check that Bradley James Haler obtained before his death were the individual property of Rebecca Haler and not an asset of the intestate estate. We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court erred in holding that the funds associated with an uncashed $80,000 cashier’s check were not an estate asset.
We reverse.
In the Montana Ninth Judicial District Court, Teton County, Appellant Michael Todd Smith was found guilty of five counts of Sexual Abuse of Children in violation of § 45-5-625(1)(e), MCA. Smith appeals the District Court’s Order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, the Order denying his motion to compel, the admissibility of certain trial exhibits, and the Judgment entering the convictions. We restate and address the following issues:
Issue 1: Whether Smith’s right to a speedy trial was violated.
Issue 2: Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Smith’s motion to compel.
Issue 3: Whether the District Court abused its discretion under M. R. Evid. 403 by admitting certain exhibits during trial.
We affirm.
Cleve Ernest Spang (Spang) appeals the February 2023 judgment and sentence of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI) (4th or subsequent), a felony in violation of § 61 8 401, MCA (2019). Spang challenges only one aspect of the judgment: the imposition of a $5,000 fine required by § 61 8 731, MCA (2019). We affirm the imposition of the fine and remand this case to the District Court to conduct an evaluation of Spang’s ability to pay.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether Spang waived his right to appellate review of a fine imposed by the District Court when he agreed to the fine in his plea agreement.
Issue Two: Whether the District Court erred by imposing a $5,000 mandatory minimum fine pursuant to § 61 8 731, MCA (2019).
Appellant James “Buck” MacLaurin Jr. (Buck) appeals from the April 18, 2025 Order of the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting Fischer Law, PLLC’s (Fischer) motion to dismiss. We restate and address the following issue:
Whether the District Court erred by concluding that Buck did not plead a viable legal malpractice claim.
We affirm.
David Pritchard appeals pro se various orders of the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court entered during dissolution proceedings involving his former wife, Lynlea Cline. We address the following restated issues:
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Pritchard’s motions to set aside the Final Decree.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in awarding Cline a share of equity in the parties’ marital home.
3. Whether Cline is entitled to sanctions.
Pritchard contends he lacked notice of proceedings and that the District Court’s Final Decree unlawfully awarded Cline equity in the parties’ marital home. Cline denies Pritchard’s claims and asks this Court to sanction him for a frivolous appeal. We affirm the District Court on all matters and deny Cline’s request for sanctions.
Ronald Allen Trow (Trow) and Rodney Owen Skurdal (Skurdal) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County alleging that Yellowstone County Justice of the Peace Jeanne Walker violated their rights when she did not allow Skurdal to represent Trow in Trow’s criminal case pending before her. Walker did not allow Skurdal to represent Trow because Skurdal is not an attorney.
Tyler Thomas Snyder appeals his August 2023 judgment and sentence in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. First, Snyder contends that the court committed reversible plain error in accepting his May 2023 guilty pleas on the offenses of DUI and felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs without a sufficient factual basis to do so. Next, Snyder contends that the court illegally sentenced him under § 61-8-1007(1)(a)(ii), MCA, because his 2009 DUI conviction was not a previous conviction for sentencing purposes under § 61-8-1011(1)(b), MCA.
Grant Gage Laman (Laman) appeals from the October 20, 2023 Order entered in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which retained the matter in the District Court rather than transferring the proceeding to Youth Court. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred by maintaining the criminal proceeding in the District Court instead of transferring it to Youth Court.
BMK Enterprises purchased commercial property from Bailey Enterprises in 2018. The Buy-Sell Agreement contained a provision granting BMK the right of first refusal on adjacent property owned by Bailey. BMK sued Bailey for breach of contract after Bailey sold the adjacent property to a third party. The District Court ruled that the right of first refusal provision was unenforceable as a matter of law and granted Bailey summary judgment. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court should have considered extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent before declaring the provision unenforceable. We reverse and remand for that consideration.
Sharon Hathaway Forrest (Forrest) appeals from the June 11, 2025 Order of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, dismissing her appeal from the Gallatin County Justice Court’s December 13, 2024 Damages Judgment in favor of Montana Crestview Apartments (Crestview). We affirm.
The Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance initiated administrative proceedings against Victory Insurance Company for three violations of the Montana Insurance Code. The agency granted summary judgment in the Commissioner’s favor and fined Victory $25,000 for each violation. The District Court affirmed the final agency decision. We address the following restated issues:
1. Did the District Court err in affirming the agency’s summary judgment ruling that Victory failed to provide its records to the Commissioner in usable form?
2. Did the Commissioner act arbitrarily and capriciously when it ordered Victory to pay the Insurance Code’s maximum permitted fine?
We affirm.
Appellant, J.S. (Mother), natural mother of K.S., appeals from the District Court’s Decree of Guardianship asserting it was made in error as: (1) the District Court erred by failing to provide Mother a treatment plan and make reasonable efforts towards reunification after remand; (2) the District Court erred in taking judicial notice of prior proceedings; (3) the District Court erred by failing to timely hold a dispositional hearing or order a treatment plan, denying visitation, and failing to provide reasonable reunification efforts; and (4) the District Court erred in finding further efforts at reunification would be unproductive. We affirm.
DA 24-0378
Joshua William Myers-Starks appeals his April 2024 judgment and sentence in the Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. He argues that the court erred in not ordering any mental examination and failing to independently evaluate his mental condition under §§ 46-14-311 and -312, MCA, as requested at sentencing. He also claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We do not reach all of Myers-Starks’ assertions because we hold that one of these issues is dispositive:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by failing to evaluate Myers-Starks’ mental condition at the time of the offense under §§ 46-14-311 and -312, MCA, as requested at sentencing.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Cody Ann Caraveo appeals her September 2024 sentence on revocation in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. The only issue she presents is whether the court erroneously denied credit for elapsed time without violations under § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2023). Caraveo claims she was entitled to 130 days elapsed-time credit—93 days from August 30 through December 1, 2023, and 37 days from April 30 through June 6, 2024. The State disputes the first period but concedes she was entitled to 37 days for the second period. We agree with the State and remand for entry of an amended judgment crediting Caraveo with 37 days elapsed-time credit.
Dennis Steffens appeals his conviction in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, for felony sexual assault in violation of § 45-5-502, MCA. Steffens requests plain error review of his claim that incorrect jury instructions on the requisite mental state violated his due process rights, alternatively claims that his counsel was ineffective for not seeking correct jury instructions, and argues that insufficient evidence of sexual contact supported his conviction. We affirm.
Appellant Karren Kay Schmiedeke (“Schmiedeke”) appeals the Order of Revocation and Disposition entered January 22, 2025, by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Schmiedeke asserts she is entitled to twelve days additional jail time credit and three months additional street time credit. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred by failing to award twelve days of jail credit from Schmiedeke’s 2019 revocation.
2. Whether the District Court erred by failing to award three months of street time from Schmiedeke’s 2019 revocation.
Michelle H. Pope (Pope) appeals from a March 13, 2025 Order of the Fourth Judicial District Court. The District Court granted the Department of Correction’s (DOC) Motion for Summary Judgment. We reverse and remand.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether the District Court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the DOC.
Issue Two: Whether the District Court erred in finding the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation.
Matthew Heaven appeals the June 16, 2025 order of the Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, denying Heaven’s motion to disqualify District Court Judge Molly Owen; declaring Heaven a vexatious litigant; and enjoining Heaven from filing pleadings without leave of the court. We restate and address the following issues:
Issue 1: Whether the District Court abused its discretion by declaring Heaven a vexatious litigant and imposing the requirement that he first obtains leave of the court before filing any future pleadings.
Issue 2: Whether the District Court correctly denied Heaven’s motion for disqualification.
Issue 3: Whether the District Court transmitted the record on appeal.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
Appellant, Stephanie A. LaMarr (LaMarr), appeals from orders of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denying her motion to modify the parenting plan and denying additional subsequent motions. We affirm.
Serenity Alana Mann appeals a conviction for Strangulation of a Partner or Family Member, a felony. Following a jury trial, the First Judicial District Court for Lewis and Clark County sentenced Mann to five years in Montana State Prison, all suspended. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by permitting other acts testimony.
Strobel raises numerous issues in both appeals, which we restate as follows. Regarding Strobel’s appeal of his July 2023 sentence on jury verdict in DC 2022-577:
1. Whether the trial court erroneously denied Strobel’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that evidence of a victim’s failure to make a timely complaint does not raise any presumption as to the victim’s credibility.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in controlling the presentation of evidence regarding McAlpin’s inconsistent statements.
4. Whether Strobel has shown reversible plain error based on his unpreserved claims of erroneous admission of propensity evidence, jury instruction error, or prosecutorial misconduct.
5. Whether Strobel’s attorneys were constitutionally ineffective.
6. Whether Strobel has shown cumulative error warranting reversal.
Regarding Strobel’s appeal of his July 2023 sentence on revocation in DC 2019-172:
7. Whether the sentencing court erroneously denied credit for elapsed time without a documented violation.
We affirm on all issues.
Jacob Handy (Jacob) appeals the April 23, 2025 order of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, granting in part Heather Miller’s (Heather) motions to amend the parties’ parenting plan and for contempt and the court’s April 23, 2025 Amended Final Parenting Plan. We address the following issues:
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by amending the parenting plan without holding an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether the District Court erred by relying on the written assessments of the minor children’s counselor without affording Jacob the opportunity to examine her at an evidentiary hearing.
Zachary Murray appeals an Eighteenth Judicial District Court jury verdict finding Murray 65% negligent when his motorcycle collided with a vehicle driven by Taylor Steinmetz as she pulled out from a parking lot onto a public roadway. We restate the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in finding that disputed facts precluded it from concluding on summary judgment that Steinmetz was negligent per se?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it allowed a Bozeman Crash Investigator to opine that Murray’s carelessness was a direct cause of the accident?
3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it refused to admit videos taken weeks after the crash intended to demonstrate traffic conditions and flow at the crash site?
4. Did the District Court manifestly abuse its discretion when it denied Murray’s motion for a new trial under M. R. Civ. P. 59(a)?
We affirm on all issues.
Appellants, Jenny Jing, Alice Carpenter, and Mike Bolenbaugh (collectively “JCB”), are among nine beneficiaries to the Estate of Ian Elliot. None of the other beneficiaries are parties to this appeal. JCB appeals the Thirteenth Judicial District Court’s Order Denying Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Rule 24 (“Motion to Intervene”); Order Denying Petitioners’ Motion for a New Trial or Hearing Under Rule 59, and Relief Under Rule 60 (“New Trial Motion”), and Order Dismissing with Prejudice (“Dismissal Order”). We affirm.
Petitioners Transparent Election Initiative and Jeff Mangan (collectively “TEI”), seek declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction and, pursuant to § 13-27-605(1), MCA, ask this Court to declare the Attorney General erred in determining Ballot Issue 9 (BI-9) legally insufficient because it violates the separate-vote requirement of Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution, and to direct the Attorney General to either approve TEI’s ballot statements or prepare and forward ballot statements to the Secretary of State within five days. At our invitation, the Attorney General has responded in opposition to TEI’s petition. With leave of Court, the Montana Mining Association, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Billings Chamber of Commerce, Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, Montana Contractor’s Association, Montana Trucking Association, Treasure State Resource Association, Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Petroleum Association, and Montana Association of Realtors filed an amicus brief supporting the Attorney General’s determination.
DA 25-0293
Zayne Hert, Amber Hert, and Kelly Hert appeal from the February 25, 2025 Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment issued by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Rosebud County. The District Court determined Zayne’s claims related to the Montana High School Association (MHSA) declaring him ineligible to play basketball as a fifth‑year senior during the 2023-24 season were moot after the season was completed. We address the following restated issues on appeal:
1. Is this case moot?
2. Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the MHSA?
Christopher Horn appeals from the June 30, 2023 Judgment entered by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, following his entry of a guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a fourth or subsequent operation of a noncommercial vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, a felony, in violation of § 61-8-406, MCA (2019). Horn raises the following issues:
1. Whether the District Court erred by imposing a mandatory-minimum $5,000 fine pursuant to § 61-8-731(1)(a)(iii), MCA (2019), because the statute is facially unconstitutional.
2. Whether the District Court erred by imposing fees in the written judgment after orally pronouncing that fees would be waived.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Thomas Jerry Hill appeals his conviction of attempted robbery from the Fourth Judicial District Court upon his plea of guilty. At his change of plea hearing, Hill raised concern about a speedy trial violation and said he wanted to “keep that on record.” When the State pointed out that no such motion had been filed, the District Court noted Hill’s concern but said it would not receive briefs on the issue. Hill alleges that the District Court’s refusal to accept briefs was an abuse of discretion and, alternatively, if not preserved, that we should review his claim for plain error. We affirm.
David Wayne Hyslop (Hyslop) appeals from the order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, denying his petition for postconviction relief which was premised primarily on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in denying Hyslop’s petition for postconviction relief.
We affirm.
Stacey Kelly appeals the Tenth Judicial District Court’s order denying her motion to set aside the final decree of distribution of her deceased husband’s estate. Stacey claims that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied her motion, arguing that she is entitled to relief under M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because the personal representative failed to notify her of the proceedings and failed to distribute to her sufficient assets to satisfy her intestate share. Because Stacey failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), we affirm.
Erik Joseph Kalafat appeals from the May 30, 2025 Order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, dismissing Kalafat’s Petition for Judicial Review and Revocation of the suspension of his driver’s license under Montana’s implied-consent law. The single issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred by granting the State’s motion to dismiss Kalafat’s petition as moot.
J.C. (Father) appeals the order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, terminating his parental rights. Father argues the District Court erroneously attributed the conduct of R.B. (Mother) to Father when it found Father subjected the children to chronic abuse or neglect and terminated his rights pursuant to §§ 41-3-609(1)(d) and 41-3-423(2)(a), MCA. Father further asserts the District Court erred in terminating his parental rights pursuant to § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, for his failure to comply with the court ordered treatment plan. Father alleges that the treatment plan was not appropriate and that the District Court erred in finding the conduct or condition rendering him unable to parent unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Additionally, Father argues the District Court abused its discretion by failing to consider a guardianship in lieu of terminating his parental rights. We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights.
2. Whether the District Court erred in not considering a guardianship in lieu of terminating Father’s parental rights.
Jonathan Edward Allen (Father) appeals from an order issued by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, dated September 12, 2025, which denied his emergency motion for temporary custody and dismissed his petition for a permanent parenting plan without prejudice. The District Court concluded that Montana was no longer the home state of R.A.A. because she had not lived in Montana for more than two years and noted that under Montana law it must recognize and enforce a child custody determination made in a foreign country. We affirm.
The State appeals the December 16, 2024 Order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which preliminarily enjoined Senate Bill 458; Montana Administrative Rule 37.8.311(5) (2022 Rule); and a 2024 Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) policy (collectively, “State Policies”), as they relate to the amendment of birth certificates and driver’s licenses. Jessica Kalarchik and Jane Doe (Plaintiffs) filed this action on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated. The District Court found the State Policies likely violate Montana’s Equal Protection clause. The District Court concluded that Plaintiffs succeeded in establishing each of the four preliminary injunction factors and thus preliminarily enjoined the State from enforcing the State Policies as they pertain to amending birth certificates and driver’s licenses. We affirm.
We restate the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the State Policies.
2. Whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion when it preliminarily enjoined the State Policies.
Michael Ross Trombley appeals the Twentieth Judicial District Court’s November 9, 2023 combined judgment revoking a 2015 suspended sentence and imposing sentences in three additional cases. Trombley challenges only two aspects of the combined judgment: first, a $5,000 fine required by § 61-8-1008(1)(a)(i), MCA (2021), which the District Court fully suspended; and second, a provision in the judgment giving the probation office the authority to “reinstate the suspended [fines and fees] . . . if they find reason that Defendant is not complying with the terms of his probation.” The State concedes Trombley’s second argument and urges the Court otherwise to affirm. We affirm the imposition and suspension of the $5,000 fine and remand for entry of an amended judgment.
Plaintiff Daniel W. Torgison (Torgison) appeals the Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction entered by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, which denied his request for injunctive relief based upon alleged violations of open meeting and right to participate laws. We consider:
Whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion by denying Torgison’s motion for preliminary injunction.
We affirm.
Kenneth Wesley Rowe appeals his November 2023 Judgment and Sentence in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. The only issue he raises is whether Condition 29 of his sentence, which, as pertinent, says that he shall not possess “any material that describes or depicts human nudity,” is unreasonable, overly broad, and has no nexus to him or the offenses of which he was convicted.
Skylar Ittner appeals pro se the October 2024 order of the Montana First Judicial District Court affirming the judgment of the City of Helena Municipal Court ordering Ittner to pay $1,254.90 in restitution. The District Court also affirmed Ittner’s July 2023 conviction on bench trial for the misdemeanor offense of Changing Lanes When Unsafe to Do So (§ 61-8-328(1), MCA), but Ittner does not appeal that aspect of the District Court’s judgment. On appeal, Ittner contends that the Municipal Court’s restitution award was not supported by substantial evidence and therefore erroneous. He also alleges that his due process rights were violated at sentencing.
James Dolan, Jr. and Samantha Dolan appeal the Eighteenth Judicial District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Tracy and Jesse Guenther and its subsequent denial of the Dolans’ partial summary judgment motion. On both motions, the District Court concluded that the Dolans did not have a ditch easement and, therefore, did not have a claim against the Guenthers for ditch interference. We restate the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court correctly determine that the Dolans do not hold an implied easement by existing use to a ditch that crosses the Cobb Hill Minor Subdivision property?
2. Are the Guenthers entitled to attorney fees and costs, including those incurred on appeal?
Though we do not adopt all of the District Court’s rationale, we affirm its rulings. Because the Guenthers accordingly are entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal, we remand for the District Court to determine a reasonable amount of fees and costs.