Motta v. Granite County

May 4 2011
DA 10-0589
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2011 MT 96N
RICHARD MOTTA, Granite
County Justice of the Peace,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
GRANITE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
SUZANNE BROWNING, MAUREEN CONNOR
and CLIFF NELSON,
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District,
In and For the County of Granite, Cause No. DV 09-53
Honorable Kurt Krueger, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Richard Motta, self-represented, Philipsburg, Montana
For Appellees:
Michael W. Sehestedt, MACo Legal Services, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 13, 2011
Decided: May 4, 2011
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath 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 Richard Motta appeals an order of the District Court, Third Judicial District, Granite
County, denying all requested relief. We affirm.
¶3 Motta was appointed as a part-time Justice of the Peace, in Granite County, after the
previous justice of the peace retired. Before Motta applied, the Granite County
Commissioners reduced the position from full-time to part-time and lowered the salary
accordingly. Subsequently, Motta and the County Commissioners came into conflict over
the hiring of a clerk and reimbursement for expenses. Ultimately, Motta sued, claiming that
(1) his hours and pay were impermissibly reduced, (2) he was not properly compensated for
expenses, and (3) he was harmed by lack of proper funding for a clerk of court. The District
Court held a bench trial on August 23, 2010.
¶4 First, the District Court concluded that Motta’s argument regarding a clerk of court
was moot. He admitted he currently had a clerk and further conceded that the Justice Court
was current with its duties.
¶5 Second, the District Court found no merit to Motta’s reimbursement argument. Both
§§ 3-10-203(1) and 3-10-209, MCA, provide for reimbursement for “actual and necessary”
expenses, as “provided in 2-18-501 through 2-18-503.” Sections 2-18-501 through 2-18-
503, MCA, provide rates of reimbursement. Motta was paid at these statutory rates and has
2
no legal basis to request further compensation.
¶6 Finally, the District Court concluded that the County Commissioners had not illegally
reduced the hours of the Granite County Justice of the Peace. The County Commissioners
were statutorily authorized both to appoint a replacement justice of the peace and reduce the
justice of the peace’s salary and hours, prior to appointment. Sections 3-10-206 through 3-
10-208, MCA. Additionally, “a constitutional provision prohibiting diminution of salaries
during the term of office is designed to remove from lawmakers the temptation to exert
control over the other branches by…threats of punishment by way of reduced salaries.”
Coate v. Omholt, 203 Mont. 488, 500, 662 P.2d 591, 597 (1983). Such a concern is absent
here, because the diminution occurred prior to Motta even applying for the position.
¶7 Motta’s argument weaves between legal and factual assertions. However, the record
is insufficient, because he failed to order a transcript of the trial below, and this Court will
not address any claims regarding factual error. M. R. App. P. 8(2); Giambra v. Kelsey, 2007
MT 158, ¶ 36, 338 Mont. 19, 162 P.3d 134.
¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The issues
in this case are legal and are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court
correctly interpreted.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
3
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
4