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.