Munro v. Munro ( 2023 )

op UT
:MUA.;., • 05/23/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
Case Number: DA 23-0131
DA 23-0131
FILEU
ALLEN MUNRO and LINDA MUNRO, MAY 2 3 2023
Bowen Greenwooa
Clark of Supreme Coun
Statw nr kitnntana
Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v. ORDER
JOHN MUNRO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Plaintiffs and Appellees Allen Munro and Linda Munro, via counsel, move to
dismiss the appeal of Appellant John Munro for failure to substantially comply with
mandatory appellate alternative dispute resolution as required by M. R. App. P. 7. Allen
and Linda further move this Court to cancel the scheduled mediation and to impose any
fees accrued against John. They have also separately moved for sanctions. John has
responded, via counsel, in opposition to Allen and Linda's motions.
M. R. App. P. 7(5) sets forth the process by which parties to any appeal subject to
Rule 7 must follow. Rule 7(5)(f) provides that parties must serve a written statement of
position that substantially complies with Form 7 in the Appendix of Forms and contains,
at a minimum, a statement of issues on appeal and the manner in which each issue was
preserved; a statement of the standard of review applicable to each issue; the position of
the party with respect to each issue, with citations to legal authority; and a copy of the order
or judgment from which the appeal is taken. Allen and Linda assert that John's statement
of position failed to comply with Rule 7(5)(f).
In response, John's current counsel does not deny that the statement of position,
submitted by John's previous counsel, failed to comply with Rule 7(5)(f). Rather, he
asserts that the statement was sufficiently "detailed and effective" to allow mediation to
proceed—although the mediation, which occurred in the interim between Allen and
Linda's motion to dismiss and John's response, was ultimately unsuccessful.
Since the inception of the mandatory appellate alternative dispute resolution
process, this Court has maintained that the provisions are self-executing, and "this Court
will not insert itself in the process except under unusual or extraordinary circumstances."
Harwood v. Glacier Elec. Coop., 282 Mont. 38, 39, 939 P.2d 981, 981-982 (1997). We
decline to do so here, nor will we entertain the related motion for sanctions. This Court
will not consume its resources disposing of motion practice regarding the mandatory
appellate dispute resolution process. Guang Xiang Liang v. Lai, 2003 MT 281, ¶ 8, 317
Mont. 524, 78 P.3d 1212.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for sanctions is DENIED.
The Clerk is direccr to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
Dated this of May, 2023.
1/0 7 Ze),
Chief Justice
ec,LeA.IL
Justices
2