By Michael Howell
The Montana Supreme Court earlier this month upheld a decision by Ravalli County District Court Judge Jim Haynes in a September 15, 2014 order in which he dismissed a complaint filed by Tom and Charlotte Robak against Ravalli County and also affirmed the District Court’s ruling of July 17, 2014 in which Haynes denied the Robaks’ motion for sanctions against the county and the Robaks’ request for attorney’s fees.
The case originally arose out of a dispute between the Robaks and Ravalli County over whether a home they constructed along the Bitterroot River was within the area of floodplain regulations. The Robaks filed suit in 2008 raising a number of claims and asking for relief from the county’s contention that their residence was built without a permit in the regulated floodplain area. In 2010, Haynes issued an initial order setting out extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law and granting and denying motions for summary judgment. The order also assessed sanctions against the Robaks of $115,000 for failing to disclose information about fill material that had been placed upon the property. In July of 2013 the parties arrived at a stipulated agreement that 11 of 12 claims in the Robaks’ complaint had been resolved.
In August of 2013 the court approved the stipulated agreement and required the parties to file a stipulation or report identifying any issues that remained unresolved. Nothing was filed, however, until March of 2014 when the County reported that in its opinion all the issues had been resolved. The Robaks disagreed and asked for more time for their new attorneys to get up to speed on the case. Then, in June of 2014, the Robaks claimed that the remaining issues were damages and attorney fees and their intent to seek sanctions against the County for improperly seeking sanctions against them in 2010. They claimed the County made “deceitful representations” in the process.
This led to the July 17, 2014 order in which Haynes found that all the issues were resolved in the 2013 stipulation for declaratory judgment and that the Robaks’ argument to the contrary “was only an attempt to circumvent the stipulated agreement.” The District Court was also “entirely unable” to find that the Robaks’ behaviors in the litigation had been “necessary and proper” or that there were any equities justifying an award of attorney fees. Haynes also found that the arguments made by the Robaks concerning their claim for sanctions against the County had been thoroughly addressed in 2010 and amounted to a “poorly disguised motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 2010 Opinions and Orders.” The Supreme Court found that the District Court properly declined to re-visit the sanction issues.
A dissenting opinion was submitted by Justice James Shea. Shea concurred with the District Court’s ruling on the sanctions issue, but disagreed over the issue of the Robaks’ possible entitlement to supplemental relief. Shea stated that the Robaks should, according to statute, be allowed the opportunity to seek supplemental damages after the judgment. He acknowledges that the District Court may well determine for various reasons that the Robaks are not entitled to damages or attorney fees, stating, “Indeed, as the majority notes…, the District Court’s Order of July 17, 2014 concluded it was ‘entirely unable’ to find the Robaks’ conduct was necessary and proper or that the equities justified an award of attorney fees…”
But, Shea argues, given the statute that allows for a petition for relief to be entered after judgment, due process would require that the Robaks be given the opportunity to seek those damages and attorney fees.
“The District Court foreclosed that possibility before the Robaks could avail themselves of that procedure,” wrote Shea. “For that reason, I would reverse and remand on this issue.”