Bates v. Neva
2013 MT 246
Mont.2013Background
- Neva rented a commercial building from Bates for an art gallery; repairs were needed but no written lease existed and rent was deferred until completion.
- Neva and Bates orally arranged Bates paying materials and Neva assisting with repairs; after months, Neva vacated without paying rent.
- Neva filed a Commission complaint in January 2010 alleging sexual harassment by Bates; amended complaint claimed Bates stopped repairs after she rebuffed advances, alleging violation of the Public Accommodation Provision; no mention of the Real-Estate Transaction Provision.
- A hearing officer found sexual harassment but concluded no Public Accommodation violation because the building was private property; the Commission reversed, remanding to determine a damage award under the Real-Estate Provision.
- The District Court vacated the Commission’s decision, ruling Neva’s claim could not be analyzed under § 49-2-305 because it was not pleaded; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process barred applying §49-2-305 when pleadings cited §49-2-304 | Neva contends due process was satisfied; the claim concerned Bates’s sexual harassment and the tenancy relation. | Bates argues he lacked notice of a §49-2-305 claim and was deprived of opportunity to defend that theory. | No due process violation; notice and full litigation of the core issues occurred. |
| Whether Neva’s amendment reasonably apprised Bates of a Real-Estate Transaction claim | Amended complaint and hearings framed the dispute around a landlord-tenant relationship and harassment. | Pleadings did not explicitly plead §49-2-305; Bates claims lack of notice. | Amendment was sufficient to place Bates on notice of the claim and the disputed setting. |
| Whether the Act applies to commercial leases (real-estate transactions) and constitutes discrimination in that setting | Discrimination under the Act can occur in housing or real-estate transactions, including commercial settings. | The Commission and district court initially treated it as housing-related; applicability to commercial leases is unsettled. | Remanded to analyze the Real-Estate Transaction Provision’s applicability to commercial leases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden Grain Macaroni Co. v. F.T.C., 472 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1972) (due process when issues are fully litigated despite pleading gaps)
- Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1938) (due process limits on administrative agency findings beyond the pleadings)
- Gallatin Trust & Sav. Bank v. Darrah, 448 P.2d 734 (Mont. 1968) (Rule 15(b) allows treating unpleaded issues as raised by implied consent when fully litigated)
- Reilly v. Maw, 405 P.2d 440 (Mont. 1965) (implied consent standard for issues tried beyond pleadings)
- Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1938) (NLRB framework for due process in administrative proceedings)