623 Partners, LLC v. Hunter, 385 P.3d 963

623 Partners held a $1.2M judgment against Hunter Development and R. Larry Hunter and pursued Fortine, Montana real property as fraudulently transferred to Larry’s son, Todd.
The Trust (formed by Larry and Glenda) quitclaimed three Fortine parcels to the Trust in 2007; the Trust later conveyed the parcels to Todd under a purchase agreement after Hunter Development defaulted.
The District Court found the Trust-to-Todd conveyance a fraudulent preferential transfer under Montana’s UFTA, set the transfer aside, revested the property in the Trust, and held Todd liable for proceeds from a parcel sale; this was affirmed in Hunter I.
On remand Todd claimed a homestead exemption for the parcel with his house and sought an offset for improvements he made; the District Court denied both claims and granted summary judgment to 623 Partners on the homestead claim.
The Supreme Court affirmed: (1) Todd could not claim a homestead because he never lawfully owned the property (transfer was voided); and (2) Todd failed to establish any legal or equitable basis for an offset for his improvements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Todd)	Defendant's Argument (623 Partners)	Held
Whether Todd qualifies for a homestead exemption on the Fortine parcel	Todd claimed he declared the parcel as his homestead in 2011 and thus it is exempt from execution	Transfer was void as fraudulent; Todd never lawfully owned the property so he cannot claim homestead	Court held Todd cannot claim homestead because the fraudulent transfer was set aside and he never owned the property
Whether Todd is entitled to an offset for value of labor/improvements	Todd sought credit/equitable relief for improvements, arguing UFTA can be supplemented by equitable principles	Statutory defenses under §31-2-340(6) MCA do not apply; no legal or preserved equitable doctrine shown to justify offset	Court held no offset: statutory defenses inapplicable and Todd failed to articulate an established equitable basis

McCone Cnty. Fed. Credit Union v. Gribble, 352 Mont. 254 (Mont. 2009) (homestead not an UFTA asset; revesting of property after fraudulent transfer)
In re Snyder, 335 Mont. 11 (Mont. 2006) (owner may exempt traceable proceeds after sale if property could have been claimed as homestead at time of disposal)
Fiscus v. Beartooth Elec. Coop., 180 Mont. 434 (Mont. 1979) (law-of-the-case principle)
Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 385 Mont. 156 (Mont. 2016) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Clark, 304 Mont. 264 (Mont. 2001) (UFTA may be supplemented by other remedies in law or equity)