H & H Development, LLC v. Ramlow, 2012 MT 51

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana held that a complaint filed pro se on behalf of a limited liability company by a nonlawyer is not automatically a nullity. It directed the district court to evaluate factors including the entity's knowledge of the filing prohibition, the promptness of obtaining counsel, prejudice to the opposing party, and the extent of the nonlawyer's participation. The court reversed and remanded for determination of whether the amended complaint could relate back under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).

Holdings

1. The three-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice actions applies because the claims are grounded in alleged legal malpractice; relabeling the claims as breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty does not obtain a longer limitations period.
2. Plaintiffs did not waive their challenge to treating the 2007 pro se complaint as a nullity because their arguments below were sufficient to avoid a significant change in legal theory on appeal.
3. A district court may not automatically declare an otherwise valid complaint a nullity solely because it was initially filed on behalf of a limited liability company by a nonlawyer. The court must evaluate whether the later attorney-signed amended complaint may relate back under M.R. Civ. P. 15(c), considering specified circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether H & H's claims were governed by Montana's three-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice rather than the five-year limitations period for breach of contract.
2. Whether plaintiffs waived their argument concerning the effect of H & H's pro se complaint by failing to raise it adequately in the District Court.
3. Whether an amended complaint signed by counsel could relate back under M.R. Civ. P. 15(c) to an earlier complaint filed on behalf of an LLC by a nonlawyer, or whether the original complaint was a nullity.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded