Lyon v. Mountain Pacific ( 2013 )

October 1 2013
DA 13-0016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2013 MT 288N
GINA M. LYON,
Plaintiff, Appellee and Cross-Appellant,
v.
MOUNTAIN PACIFIC GENERAL, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 11-397(C)
Honorable Stewart E. Stadler, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
P. Mars Scott, Stephanie K. Mann, P. Mars Scott Law Offices; Missoula,
Montana
For Appellee:
Penni L. Chisholm, Dean D. Chisholm, Chisholm & Chisholm, P.C.;
Columbia Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 11, 2013
Decided: October 1, 2013
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve
as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Appellant Mountain Pacific General, Inc. (MPG) appeals the order of the Eleventh
Judicial District Court, Flathead County, that directed the Clerk of Court to distribute to Gina
Lyon (Gina) $132,000 held in a dissolution proceeding involving Gina and Jeffrey Lyon
(Jeffrey). Gina cross-appeals the District Court’s denial of her motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs. We affirm.
¶3 Gina filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Eleventh Judicial District Court
in 2005 in Cause No. DR-05-154C. The petition named Gina and Jeffrey as the only two
parties to the action. The District Court entered the decree of dissolution on February 4,
2008.
¶4 Gina filed a motion for contempt against Jeffrey on June 29, 2010. The District Court
awarded Gina $113,104 for past medical expenses and child support. The District Court also
entered judgment against MPG “for the care and support of the parties’ children” even
though MPG had not been a party to the action. MPG filed a limited appearance to set aside
the judgment and quash the execution against its corporate property.
¶5 In the meantime, MPG sold real property owned by the marital estate on which it had
filed a lien. Gina contended that she should receive MPG’s portion of the sale to satisfy
2
Jeffrey’s debt to her. The parties agreed to deposit $132,000 with the Flathead County Clerk
of Court until the District Court determined ownership and directed disbursement. The
$132,000 represented MPG’s interest in the sale proceeds from the real property.
¶6 The District Court set aside the judgment against MPG on March 30, 2011. The
District Court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a check for $132,000 to MPG’s counsel.
¶7 Shortly thereafter, Gina filed a complaint against MPG in the Eleventh Judicial
District in Cause No. DV-11-397C. Gina sought a ruling that MPG serves as Jeffrey’s alter
ego. The District Court granted a temporary restraining order that directed the Clerk of
Court to retain the $132,000 previously deposited in Cause No. DR-05-154C.
¶8 MPG filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Gina had failed to raise the issue of
MPG having served as an alter ego for Jeffrey at the dissolution proceedings. MPG argued
that Gina should be prevented from raising this issue in a separate proceeding. The District
Court denied MPG’s motion and directed the Clerk of Court to continue to hold the
$132,000. MPG filed a petition for alternative writ of mandate with this Court. We denied
MPG’s petition. Lyon v. Stadler, No. OP 11-0752 (Feb. 14, 2012).
¶9 The District Court granted summary judgment in Gina’s favor based upon its finding
that MPG, in fact, represents the alter ego of Jeffrey. The District Court denied Gina’s
motion, pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 11, for attorneys’ fees and costs. The District Court later
entered judgment against MPG for $160,655 in addition to any future child support or
medical support owing by Jeffrey, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The District
Court ordered the Clerk of Court to distribute to Gina the $132,000 being held in Cause No.
3
DR-05-154C to satisfy the judgment in Cause No. DV-11-397C. MPG appeals and Gina
cross-appeals.
¶10 MPG argues on appeal that the District Court lacked authority to attach funds in
Cause No. DR-05-154C to satisfy a judgment in Cause No. DV-11-397C. Gina responds
that the District Court acted properly and, regardless, this issue is moot. Even if the District
Court could not order the Clerk of Court to distribute the $132,000, Gina points out that
MPG still would owe Gina $160,655. Gina contends that success on appeal would be
inconsequential unless MPG intended to reclaim the funds and avoid paying the amount that
it owes Gina. Gina cross-appeals the District Court’s denial of her motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 11.
¶11 We typically review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary
injunction for a manifest abuse of discretion. Mont. Cannabis Indus. Ass’n v. State, 2012
MT 201, ¶ 12, 366 Mont. 224, 286 P.3d 1161. We review a district court’s decision on Rule
11 sanctions to determine whether the findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and whether the
conclusions constitute an abuse of discretion. Morin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013
MT 146, ¶ 33, 370 Mont. 305, 302 P.3d 96.
¶12 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, that provides for memorandum
opinions. The District Court did not manifestly abuse discretion when it directed the Clerk
of Court to distribute to Gina $132,000 held from the dissolution proceedings, because the
judgment in Cause No. DV-11-397C entitled Gina to receive this amount from MPG one
4
way or another. MPG has failed to establish that the $132,000 deposited with the Clerk of
Court represents anything other than fungible assets of MPG. Based on the briefs and
record, the District Court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and the District Court
did not abuse discretion when it denied Gina’s M. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs.
¶13 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
5