Archive | Rule 11 sanctions

RSS feed for this section

In the Matter of the Guardianship of AMM

In the Matter of the Guardianship of AMM, 2015 MT 250 (Aug. 24, 2015) (Shea, J.; Rice, J., concurring) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Timothy’s motion to vacate the March 24, 2014 FOF/COLs and Judgment; (2) whether the district court erred in striking Timothy’s reply brief; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting the powers of the joint conservators and not allowing them to act in AMM’s elected corporate roles; (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Wold; (5) whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering Timothy to personally pay attorney fees to Emerson as part of a Rule 11 sanction; and (6) whether Timothy can allege violations of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct in this appeal.…

Serrania v. LPH, Inc.

Serrania v. LPH, Inc., 2015 MT 113 (April 28, 2015) (Baker, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the appeal is justiciable; (2) whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to LPH on Serrania’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in sanctioning Serrania’s attorney, Terry Wallace.

Short Answer: (1) Serrania’s sanction and contract judgment appeals are moot, but her FDCPA claim appeal is live, and Wallace’s appeal is live; (2) yes; and (3) some sanctions are affirmed and some are reversed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Facts: Karrie Lynn Serrania went to Discovery Dental Group, PLLC (DDG) in 2009. She signed a contract agreeing to pay for treatment, services, and all collection and legal fees if necessary.…