State v. Polejewski ( 2021 )

11/02/2021
DA 21-0150
Case Number: DA 21-0150
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2021 MT 283N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
PAMELA JO POLEJEWSKI,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADV-20-274
Honorable Michele R. Levine, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Pamela Jo Polejewski, Self-Represented, Great Falls, Montana
For Appellee:
Jordan Y. Crosby, James R. Zadick, Ugrin Alexander Zadick, P.C.,
Great Falls, Montana
Joshua A. Racki, Cascade County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 6, 2021
Decided: November 2, 2021
Filed:
c .,.--.
6--4(
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), 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 Pamela Jo Polejewski appeals the Eighth Judicial District Court’s March 26, 2021
order denying her requests for an injunction and reconsideration of constitutional issues
related to the forfeiture of her animals pursuant to § 27-1-434, MCA. We affirm.
¶3 One hundred seventy-two animals were removed from Polejewski’s property
pursuant to a search warrant after officers responding to a May 6, 2020 fire observed cruel
living conditions. The county took custody of the animals, and veterinarians directed by
the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office assessed the animals’ health and medical needs.
While legal proceedings were pending, some animals passed away and some were
euthanized for their well-being upon veterinarian recommendation.
¶4 On May 15, 2020, Polejewski was arrested on four counts of animal cruelty pursuant
to § 45-8-211(1)(b) and (1)(c)(iii), MCA, and one count of aggravated animal cruelty
pursuant to § 45-8-217(2), MCA.
¶5 On May 18, 2020, the State filed a Petition for Animal Welfare and Cost of Care
pursuant to § 27-1-434, MCA. An evidentiary hearing was held on May 26, 2020. At the
hearing, Polejewski was represented by counsel but declined to call witnesses or introduce
2
evidence. Polejewski also did not raise any constitutional arguments at that time. The
State presented photographic evidence and testimony from law enforcement, animal shelter
staff, and veterinarians showing the conditions of the animals and Polejewski’s property,
as well as demonstrating the animals’ monthly costs of care. On June 4, 2020, the District
Court issued an order finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the animals had been
subjected to cruelty and that the reasonable monthly cost of their care was $31,019.60.
Pursuant to the statute, the order provided Polejewski was to post a bond for the monthly
costs by June 1, 2020.
¶6 Because Polejewski failed to post the $31,019.60 bond within five days of the
order’s payment date, the District Court issued an Order of Forfeiture pursuant to
§ 27-1-434(6)(e), MCA. The Order of Forfeiture was stayed pending Polejewski’s first
appeal.
¶7 In State v. Polejewski, No. DA 20-0306, 2020 MT 287N, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2484Polejewski I), this Court affirmed the District Court’s June 4, 2020 order, declining review
of Polejewski’s constitutional arguments because they were first raised on appeal. The
State exercised its right to forfeiture and released the animals for adoption.
¶8 One day after the Notice of Filing Remittitur for Polejewski I was filed, Polejewski
filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for injunction with the District Court. The
District Court held a hearing on the motions on February 18, 2021. Both Polejewski and
the State appeared and presented arguments. On March 26, 2021, the court issued its ruling
denying Polejewski’s motions. The court held Polejewski’s constitutional claims were
barred by res judicata and that the State had legally exercised its authority to release the
3
forfeited animals pursuant to this Court’s affirmation, rendering her motion for injunction
moot. Polejewski appeals.
¶9 Whether a district court correctly applied the doctrine of claim preclusion
(res judicata) is a question of law this Court reviews de novo for correctness. Reisbeck v.
Farmers Ins. Exch., 2020 MT 171, ¶ 10, 400 Mont. 345, 467 P.3d 557. When the grant or
denial of an injunction is based solely upon conclusions of law, we review the district
court’s conclusions for correctness. City of Whitefish v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Flathead
Cty., 2008 MT 436, ¶ 7, 347 Mont. 490, 199 P.3d 201.
¶10 Claim preclusion bars issues in a second suit between the same parties or their
privies that could have been litigated in a prior cause of action when the second suit is
based on the same cause of action as the first. Reisbeck, ¶ 15. Finality is central to claim
preclusion, Touris v. Flathead County, 2011 MT 165, ¶ 12, 361 Mont. 172, 258 P.3d 1(using the term “res judicata”), and the doctrine promotes a judicial policy “favoring a
definite end to litigation.” Somont Oil Co. v. A & G Drilling, Inc., 2008 MT 447, ¶ 8,
348 Mont. 12, 199 P.3d 241. Claim preclusion applies once a final judgment on the merits
has been entered in an earlier action. Reisbeck, ¶ 15; Touris, ¶ 13. When there has been a
full opportunity to present an issue, the determination of the court in that proceeding is
final as to all those issues raised or which fairly could have been raised. Somont Oil, ¶ 11.
Claim preclusion bars a claim if in the past and present actions (1) the parties or their privies
are the same; (2) the subject matter is the same; (3) the issues are the same and relate to the
same subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the parties are the same as to the subject
matter and the issues between them. Reisbeck, ¶ 15; Touris, ¶ 13.
4
¶11 In Polejewski I, this Court held Polejewski waived her constitutional challenges by
failing to properly preserve those objections before the district court at the May 26, 2020
hearing. Here, Polejewski again seeks to bring constitutional challenges based on the same
cause of action as in Polejewski I. The parties, subject matter, issues, and capacities of the
parties are identical to Polejewski I. The District Court correctly determined Polejewski’s
claims are barred by claim preclusion.
¶12 As to the injunction, the District Court correctly determined that Polejewski did not
timely post the ordered bond and therefore the State was statutorily authorized to release
the forfeited animals under § 27-1-434(6)(e), MCA. The District Court was correct that,
because the animals had already been legally disposed of, Polejewski’s injunction request
was moot.
¶13 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review. The District Court’s interpretation and application of the
law were correct.
¶14 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ JIM RICE
5