Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
On the bench with
Cuatt v. Benedetto
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-06-02
This case involved Kevin and Heidi Cuatt's attempt to enforce a $362,000 Florida court judgment against Xena Benedetto and Christian Benedetto in Montana by filing a notice of foreign judgment. Benedetto moved to vacate the filing for lack of notice, stay enforcement pending Florida appeals, and disqualify the Cuatts' attorney due to an alleged conflict from a prior unrelated representation by the attorney's law firm. The district court denied all motions, finding actual notice had been received and statutory requirements under § 25-9-504, MCA, were met, no security or compliance with appellate rules for a stay was shown, and no relevant confidential information from the prior matter existed. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Benedetto's claims of insufficient notice were contradicted by her own acknowledgments, the attorney disqualification was properly denied under professional conduct rules as the matters were unrelated, and the district court correctly applied settled law on enforcement and stays.
procedure
Skurdal v. State
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-05-19
The plaintiffs, Ronald Allen Trow and Rodney Owen Skurdal, filed a declaratory judgment action against the State of Montana and Yellowstone County alleging that a justice of the peace violated their rights by refusing to allow Skurdal, a non-attorney, to represent Trow in Trow's pending criminal case. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from relitigating the representation issue. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the prior decision in Skurdal v. Walker had already determined that Skurdal could not represent Trow because he was not licensed to practice law and that all elements of collateral estoppel were met.
criminal lawprocedure
IN RE THE PARENTING OF R.A.A.
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-04-21
The case concerned a child custody dispute between Jonathan Edward Allen (Father) and Petronella Gerline Allen (Mother) over their daughter R.A.A., who had lived in Montana before being taken to the Netherlands in 2023. Father filed an emergency motion for temporary custody and a petition for a permanent parenting plan in Montana district court after foreign courts in the Netherlands had addressed related custody and Hague Convention issues. The district court denied the motion and dismissed the petition without prejudice, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because Montana was no longer the child's home state under the UCCJEA as she had not resided there for more than two years. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined it had no child custody jurisdiction and that Montana must recognize and enforce valid foreign judgments on the matter.
family law
Kalarchik v. State
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-04-14
The case Kalarchik v. State involved plaintiffs challenging Montana state policies, including Senate Bill 458 and related administrative rules and MVD policies, that restricted amendments to sex designations on birth certificates and driver's licenses except in limited circumstances such as clerical errors. The district court granted a preliminary injunction after finding the policies likely violated Montana's equal protection clause, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The court first determined that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the challenge on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals. It then held that the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in concluding that the four preliminary injunction factors were met, primarily based on the equal protection claim, while avoiding a full merits decision on other constitutional issues.
civil rightsprocedure
State v. Trombley
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-03-24
In State v. Trombley, the defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss a felony Bail Jumping charge under § 45-7-308, MCA, after he failed to appear at a scheduled hearing despite being released on conditions. Trombley argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague due to the undefined term "lawful excuse" and that the State's information failed to allege facts establishing probable cause by negating any lawful excuse. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the statute is not vague as applied to Trombley's conduct of failing to appear and that "lawful excuse" functions as an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise, rather than an element the State must disprove in the charging documents. The court reasoned that the information sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense and provided adequate notice, and that the State is not required to negate exceptions or defenses in an information or affidavit.
criminal lawprocedure
Marriage of Nevin
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-03-24
This case involves post-dissolution disputes between former spouses Guy Nevin and Tanya Saueressig over child support arrearages for their daughter S.N. and enforcement of a property settlement agreement regarding student loan obligations. The District Court found Nevin in contempt and ordered him to pay $72,800 in child support under the original parenting plan while denying his motion to hold Saueressig in contempt for failing to remove him from the loan. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the child support order, concluding that equitable estoppel applied because S.N. had primarily resided with Nevin since late 2019 and Saueressig had acquiesced in the nonpayment, and affirmed the denial of contempt against Saueressig on the grounds that she had generally complied with the agreement and no blatant abuse of discretion occurred.
family lawproperty