Cox v. Kobelt , 366 Mont. 129 ( 2012 )

August 29 2012
DA 12-0150
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2012 MT 190C.C. COX,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
AMANDA KOBELT and AARON KOBELT,
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Sanders, Cause No. DV 12-21
Honorable C.B. McNeil, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
C.C. Cox (self-represented), Plains, Montana
For Appellees:
(No Appellees’ brief filed.)
Submitted on Briefs: July 11, 2012
Decided: August 29, 2012
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 C.C. Cox (Cox) appeals an order of the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders
County, dismissing his appeal. We reverse.
¶2 Cox raises the following issue:
¶3 Did the District Court properly dismiss Cox’s appeal for failure to comply with § 25-
33-201, MCA?
¶4 Cox rented a residence to Amanda and Aaron Kobelt (Kobelts) in Plains, Montana.
The relationship between the parties was turbulent, to say the least. Kobelts signed a lease on
September 6, 2011. Hostilities arose between the parties stemming from the rental
relationship that caused Kobelts to move out of the residence on December 1, 2011.
¶5 Cox filed an action in Justice Court against Kobelts after the termination of the rental
relationship. Cox alleged, in part, that Kobelts owed him past due rent and owed him for
property damages caused by Kobelts. The Justice Court held a bench trial, and rejected
Cox’s allegations. The court instead ordered Cox to return Kobelts’ security deposit of $850.
¶6 Cox appealed this judgment to District Court. Cox included in his notice of appeal an
undertaking that stated he would pay the $850 judgment if the District Court dismissed his
appeal or if he withdrew his appeal. Cox also stated that he would pay the amount of any
judgment rendered against him in District Court. Cox included the name of two sureties who
would guarantee his payment of judgment.
¶7 The District Court dismissed Cox’s appeal. It stated that Cox had failed to comply
with § 25-33-201, MCA, which requires that the appellant file an undertaking for a sum twice
2
the amount of the Justice Court judgment. The District Court noted that Cox had included
only the exact sum of his Justice Court judgment rather than a sum twice the amount of the
judgment. The court dismissed the appeal based on Cox’s inadequate undertaking. Cox
appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8 A district court’s interpretation and application of a statute represents a conclusion of
law. Estate of Donald v. Kalispell Regl. Med. Cntr., 2011 MT 166, ¶ 17, 361 Mont. 179,
258 P.3d 395. We review a district court’s conclusions of law to determine whether those
conclusions are correct. Estate of Donald, ¶ 17.
DISCUSSION
¶9 Did the District Court properly dismiss Cox’s appeal for failure to comply with § 25-
33-201, MCA?
¶10 Cox contends that Montana law required the District Court to provide Cox an
opportunity to remedy his undertaking before dismissing his appeal. Section 25-33-207,
MCA, governs defective undertakings. It provides that “[n]o appeal shall be dismissed for
insufficiency of the undertaking . . . if a good and sufficient undertaking be filed in the
district court at or before the hearing of the motion to dismiss the appeal . . . .” This statute
required the District Court to provide Cox an opportunity to remedy his defective
undertaking, at least until the District Court held a hearing. The District Court failed to
provide Cox any such opportunity before it dismissed his appeal.
¶11 We reverse. The District Court must provide Cox an opportunity, pursuant to § 25-
3
33-207, MCA, to remedy his undertaking before dismissing his appeal.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
4