Archive | Rule 60

RSS feed for this section

In re the Marriage of Wagenman

In re the Marriage of Wagenman, 2016 MT 176 (July 19, 2016) (Wheat, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in denying Tammy’s Rule 60(b) motion to amend the final decree of dissolution, and (2) whether the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Matt.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.

Reversed and remanded 

Facts: Matt and Tammy Wagenman married in 1996, and jointly petitioned for dissolution in 2012, each appearing pro se. They have no children, and used the self-help dissolution forms approved by the Court. In the “real property” section of the petition, they indicated they own their marital home in Shepherd. In another section of the petition, they stated the real property should be distributed as described in Exhibit A, which was attached to the petition.…

Estate of Kinnaman v. Mountain West Bank

Estate of Kinnaman v. Mountain West Bank, 2016 MT 25 (Feb. 2, 2016) (Cotter, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in grating Mountain West’s motion to change venue; (2) whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Mountain West on all claims; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in taking judicial notice of the record in previous actions; and (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the estate’s Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the summary judgment order.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no; (3) no; and (4) no.

Affirmed

Facts: This is the third of three lawsuits stemming from a condominium development at Hauser Lake. The first resulted in a final judgment that was not appealed, and the second was resolved in 2013 MT 99.…

State v. Osborn

State v. Osborn, 2015 MT 48 (Feb. 17, 2015) (McGrath, C.J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: Whether district court properly denied Osborn’s Rule 60(b) motion.

Short Answer: Yes.

Affirmed

Facts: Osborn was sentenced for several offenses to suspended sentences, running concurrently and consecutively. After a number of violations, the state petitioned to revoke his suspended sentence, and the district court granted the petition. Osborn sought review from the Sentence Review Division, which concluded the sentence was not clearly excessive.

Procedural Posture & Holding: Osborn moved for relief from the judgment under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b). The state argued the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in a criminal case, and the district court denied the motion. Osborn appeals, and the Supreme Court affirms.…

Jonas v. Jonas

Jonas v. Jonas, 2013 MT 202 (July 23, 2013) (5-0) (Wheat, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by denying Edwin’s motion to set aside the charging order and the appointment of the receiver; and (2) whether Linda is entitled to fees and costs under M.R. App. P. 19(5).

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) yes.

Affirmed & remanded for attorneys’ fees and costs

Wittich Law Firm, P.C. v. O’Connell

Wittich Law Firm, P.C. v. O’Connell, 2013 MT 122 (May 7, 2013) (4-1) (Wheat, J., for the majority; Baker, J. concurs; Cotter, J., dissents)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court slightly abused its discretion in denying O’Connells’ motion to vacate the default judgment, and (2) whether the law firm was properly awarded attorneys’ fees.

Short Answer: (1) No, as it was untimely under the 2009 Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) yes, as the contract allowed them.

Affirmed