Archive | Statute of limitations

RSS feed for this section

Belanus v. Potter

Belanus v. Potter, 2017 MT 95 (April 26, 2017) (Wheat, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court correctly concluded that Belanus’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) whether the district court correctly concluded that Belanus’s claim is barred by res judicata; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Belanus to be a vexatious litigant and issuing a pre-filing order against him.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) yes; and (3) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Belanus was convicted in June 2009 of aggravated kidnapping and sexual intercourse without consent of his then-girlfriend, TC. A key piece of evidence was a taped telephone conversation that occurred a few months before the assault in which a drunken Belanus threatened TC with death and bodily injury.…

Estate of Woody v. Big Horn County

Estate of Woody v. Big Horn County, 2016 MT 180 (July 26, 2016) (Baker, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred in holding that the estate’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Short Answer: Yes.

Reversed and remanded

Facts: Kenneth Woody IV was killed on December 16, 2011 after the vehicle in which he was a passenger crashed, following a high-speed chase by a Big Horn County sheriff’s deputy. On September 11, 2014, Woody’s estate submitted a claim letter to the county, seeking $750,000 for wrongful death and survivorship damages. The letter informed the county it had 120 days to resolve the claim without litigation. The county commissioners acknowledged receipt on September 15, 2014, but never responded.…

Bergum v. Musselshell County

Bergum v. Musselshell County, 2016 MT 47 (March 1, 2016) (McKinnon, J.; Baker, J., concurring) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in concluding the statute of limitations in § 2214, RCM (1935) barred Bergum’s quiet title action, and (2) whether the district court erred in denying Musselshell County its attorney fees under § 25-7-105, MCA.

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

Affirmed

Facts: This case involves the disputed ownership of subsurface mineral rights to 320.58 acres of coal-rich land in Musselshell County. In 1908, Lincoln and Annie Westcott received patents for adjacent parcels of 160 and 160.58 acres, for which they paid $1,600 and $1,605.80 respectively. Lincoln then conveyed his patented 160 acres to Annie.…

Siebken v. Voderberg

Siebken v. Voderberg, 2015 MT 296 (Oct. 13, 2015) (Baker, J.; Cotter, J., concurring) (6-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether Siebken is entitled to a new trial based on the district court’s admission of a letter regarding Siebken’s medical history and diagnosis; (2) whether Siebken is entitled to a new trial because the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the statute of limitations; and (3) whether substantial evidence supported the jury verdict.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) the Court declines to review this issue because Siebken did not preserve the issue for appeal; and (3) yes.

Affirmed

Facts: In Siebken I, this Court reversed summary judgment for Voderberg on statute of limitations grounds. On remand, the primary factual dispute at trial was when the three-year statute began to run on Siebken’s negligence claim.…

State v. Montana Second Judicial District

State v. Montana Second Judicial District, 2015 MT 294 (Oct. 13, 2015) (Baker, J.) (5-0, writ granted, rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the Court will accept review of the state’s petition for supervisory control, and (2) whether the district court erred in holding that the limitations period for unlawful possession of wildlife begins to run on the date a person gains control or ownership of the unlawfully taken wildlife.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes. A violation of § 87-6-202(1), MCA, is continuous conduct for statute of limitations purposes.

Writ of supervisory control granted; district court’s dismissal of counts I & V reversed

Facts: The state charged Joseph McGrath with several offenses under Title 87, MCA, including four counts of unlawful possession of wildlife under § 87-6-202(1).…

Garza v. Forquest Ventures, Inc.

Garza v. Forquest Ventures, Inc., 2015 MT 284 (Sept. 29, 2015) (Baker, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court correctly determined that Plaintiffs-Investors timely asserted their claims under the Montana Securities Act; (2) whether the district court correctly determined that the non-Garza Investors’ claims relate back to the original complaint’s filing date; (3) whether the district court correctly determined there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding Forquest’s failure to use reasonable care in its sale of securities; and (4) whether the district court correctly held that Advanced Analytical could not “unintentionally” waive its right to raise personal jurisdiction by filing an empty 12(b)(6) motion.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) yes; (3) yes; and (4) no.…

Montana Interventional & Diagnostic Radiology Specialists, PLLC v. St. Peter’s Hospital

Montana Interventional & Diagnostic Radiology Specialists, PLLC v. St. Peter’s Hospital, 2015 MT 258 (Sept. 1, 2015) (Cotter, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred in granting the hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the primary complaint being barred by the statute of limitations.

Short Answer: Yes.

Reversed and remanded

Facts: MIDRS and St. Peter’s worked together for many years, with MIDRS physicians providing radiological services through the hospital. Before 2006, St. Peter’s had an “open” radiology department, meaning the hospital medical staff granted privileges to qualified non-employee radiologists to interpret images taken at the hospital.

In 2005, MIDRS announced its intent to open a separate imagining facility in Helena, which would compete with St.…

Hein v. Sott

Hein v. Sott, 2015 MT 196 (July 14, 2015) (Baker, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether Hein’s negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims were barred by the statute of repose; (2) whether Hein’s Consumer Protection Act claims were barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Hein did not provide expert testimony on causation for his Consumer Protection Act claim arising from Sott’s alleged breach of contract and deceptive billing practices.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) Yes for claims arising more than two years before Hein filed suit, but no for claims arising within the two years prior to Hein’s complaint; (3) Yes, as no expert testimony is necessary for issues that are not beyond the common experience of the trier of fact.…

Estate of Gleason v. Central United Life Insurance Co.

Estate of Gleason v. Central United Life Insurance Co., 2015 MT 140 (May 20, 2015) (Wheat, J.; McKinnon, J., concurring & dissenting; Rice, J., concurring & dissenting) (5-2, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) whether the district erred in applying the notice-prejudice rule; (2) whether the district court erred when it instructed the jury that it must first find UTPA damages other than damages for failure to pay benefits before considering punitive damages; (3) whether the district court erred by failing to direct a verdict against Central United for violating the UTPA; (4) whether the district erred in not dismissing the UTPA claim because Central United had a reasonable basis in law for denying the claims; (5) whether the district court erred in determining the date from which the statute of limitations was applied; (6) whether the district court erred in allowing the parties to present evidence of other cases in and out of Montana; (7) whether the district court properly awarded trial costs to Central United; (8) whether the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to the estate.…

Kananen v. South

Kananen v. South, 2013 MT 232 (Aug. 20, 2013) (5-0) (Wheat, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly dismissed Kananen’s fraud claim on the basis of the statute of limitations; (2) whether the district court erred by not conducting a hearing on the motion to dismiss; and (3) whether the district court properly awarded attorney fees and costs.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no; and (3) no. The award of attorney fees and costs under § 40-4-110, MCA, is reversed.

Affirmed and reversed