Runkle v. Allen

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Duane Allen and Rule 11 sanctions against John D. Runkle in a dispute involving a cabin straddling their properties. The court held that Runkle failed to establish genuine issues of material fact supporting his contract, trespass, conversion, waste, and emotional-distress claims, and declined to consider theories raised for the first time on appeal. The court also upheld the sanctions, concluding that Runkle had notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, while declining to award Allen additional sanctions for the appeal.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment for Allen was proper because Runkle failed to establish substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact or demonstrating entitlement to relief on his claims.
2. The Supreme Court will not address substantive or procedural issues, including a change in the theory of the case, that were raised for the first time on appeal.
3. The District Court did not violate Runkle's due process rights by imposing Rule 11 sanctions without a separate hearing because Runkle received notice of the sanctions request and a reasonable opportunity to respond, and he did not timely object to the lack of a hearing.
4. Allen was not awarded attorney's fees and costs on appeal because the Supreme Court determined that the appeal did not warrant appellate sanctions under M. R. App. P. 19(5).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment against Runkle's claims for breach of contract, conversion, trespass, waste, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2. Whether the District Court erred in denying Runkle's request to file a third amended complaint.
3. Whether the District Court properly imposed Rule 11 sanctions and whether Runkle was denied due process by the absence of a hearing before sanctions were imposed.
4. Whether appellate attorney's fees and costs should be awarded to Allen for defending the appeal.

Disposition

affirmed