Matter of A.M.M. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                         10/06/2020
    DA 20-0021
    Case Number: DA 20-0021
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    2020 MT 257N
    IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
    AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF A.M.M.,
    Incapacitated Person.
    APPEAL FROM:      District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Lake, Cause Nos. DG 14-2 and DG 14-3
    Honorable James A. Manley, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Genet McCann, Self-represented, Big Sky, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Kent P. Saxby, Johnson, Berg, & Saxby, PLLP, Kalispell, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: September 2, 2020
    Decided: October 6, 2020
    Filed:
    cir-641.—if
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Ingrid Gustafson 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       On this fourth appeal in these proceedings,1 Genet McCann (McCann) appeals three
    orders of the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County: (1) the November 27, 2019
    Order Approving Sixth and Final Accounting (July 1, 2018-July 20, 2019) and Terminating
    Co-Conservatorship; (2) the November 26, 2019 Order expanding the Rule 11 Order of
    June 24, 2015; and (3) the November 21, 2019 Order reiterating the clerk cannot file any
    pleadings from McCann that have not been certified by an attorney. We affirm the District
    Court.
    ¶3       McCann’s main focus on appeal is her continued efforts to remove Judge James A.
    Manley from presiding over the guardianship and conservatorship proceedings of her
    mother, A.M.M., and to void all orders entered by Judge Manley in the case. McCann
    attempted to file an Affidavit to Disqualify Judge Manley on November 13, 2019—
    fourteen days before the scheduled November 27 hearing on the co-conservators’ petition
    1
    See In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M., No. DA 16-0729, 2017 MT 227N, 
    2017 Mont. LEXIS 566
    ; In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M., 
    2016 MT 213
    , 
    384 Mont. 413
    , 
    380 P.3d 736
    ; In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M., 
    2015 MT 250
    , 
    380 Mont. 451
    , 
    356 P.3d 474
    .
    2
    to terminate the conservatorship and without certification from a licensed attorney. Even
    if this motion had been properly filed, however, the motion to disqualify Judge Manley
    was untimely, as the statute requires affidavits to disqualify to be filed 30 days before a
    scheduled hearing. See § 3-1-805(1)(a), MCA.
    ¶4    McCann has further failed to raise any cognizable objections to the sixth and final
    accounting. She asserted denial of the right to “corporate access and discovery,” citing
    § 35-1-1106 and -1107, MCA (2017), repealed by 2019 Mont. Laws ch. 271, § 269
    (effective June 1, 2020), and Title 72, chapter 38, MCA, but such claims are corporate
    governance issues, not conservatorship issues. She asserted certain rental income was
    unaccounted for, but the accountant for the conservator estate explained the additional
    rental income due from tenants on the subject properties is now owed to the probate estate
    and is not a conservatorship issue. The District Court did not err in approving the final
    accounting and closing the conservatorship based on these issues.
    ¶5    Finally, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing orders enforcing
    and expanding its prior Rule 11 sanctions against McCann. As evidenced by the affidavit
    to disqualify that McCann attempted to file on November 13, 2019, McCann continues in
    her efforts to file groundless motions on issues that have been previously litigated and
    determined.
    ¶6    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
    3
    Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
    applicable standards of review.
    ¶7     Affirmed.
    /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
    We concur:
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
    /S/ BETH BAKER
    /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DA 20-0021

Filed Date: 10/6/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/15/2020