Boushie v. Windsor, 2016 MT 172N

Windsor and Boushie have long-standing hostile interactions originating in 2012; Windsor engaged in persistent litigation, harassment, and public postings about Boushie.
Missoula Municipal Court entered a Temporary Order of Protection (TOP) against Windsor in 2013; the District Court and this Court previously affirmed the TOP. Boushie v. Windsor, 2014 MT 153.
Windsor was later arrested multiple times for violating the TOP and for failing to appear; the TOP was dismissed by the District Court in February 2015 after alternative criminal no-contact protections were in place.
In November 2015 Windsor filed a M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking to void or set aside the (already dismissed) TOP; the District Court denied relief and closed the file.
Windsor appealed the denial under M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) (voidness); the Supreme Court reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding Windsor’s claims were meritless and barred by issue preclusion.
The Court declared Windsor a vexatious litigant and imposed sanctions: a $1,000 monetary penalty payable to Boushie and a filing restriction requiring a Montana-licensed attorney’s attestation of Rule 11 compliance (and payment of the sanction) before Windsor may file further proceedings concerning Boushie.

Issue	Windsor's Argument	Boushie's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court erred in denying Windsor’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion to void the TOP	The TOP should be declared void/invalid and set aside despite prior dismissal of the underlying petition	The TOP’s validity was already litigated and upheld; Rule 60(b)(4) relief is improper	Denied — Windsor’s motion lacked merit and was barred by issue preclusion
Whether the Court’s "inherent power" required review of Windsor’s motion	District Court had an obligation under inherent powers to act on the motion	No authority showed an obligation to revisit a dismissed, previously adjudicated TOP	Rejected — Windsor cited no controlling authority; argument without merit
Whether denial violated Windsor’s due process rights	General claim to constitutional due process	No supporting facts or authority; Windsor had prior full opportunity to litigate	Rejected — argument unsupported and meritless
Whether Windsor could relitigate TOP validity because TOP was dismissed, not the petition	The distinction allows renewed review and affects ongoing criminal matters	Issue preclusion bars relitigation; prior adjudications decided TOP’s validity on the merits	Rejected — issue preclusion applies and bars relitigation

Boushie v. Windsor, 328 P.3d 631 (Mont. 2014) (prior appeal affirming TOP and addressing Windsor’s vexatious litigation history)
Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose’s Saloon, Inc., 166 P.3d 451 (Mont. 2007) (standard of review for Rule 60(b)(4) voidness reviewed de novo)
Kullick v. Skyline Homeowners Assn., 69 P.3d 225 (Mont. 2003) (issue preclusion bars relitigation of previously resolved issues)
Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 130 P.3d 1267 (Mont. 2006) (doctrine against piecemeal collateral attacks; elements of issue preclusion)
Motta v. Granite County Comm’rs, 304 P.3d 720 (Mont. 2013) (factors for tailoring sanctions and restrictions on vexatious litigants)
Guill v. Guill, 339 P.3d 81 (Mont. 2014) (sanctions and filing restrictions for vexatious litigant appeals)
Hartsoe v. Tucker, 309 P.3d 39 (Mont. 2013) (tailored injunctions to prevent frivolous filings by repeat litigants)
Grenz v. Fire & Cas. of Conn., 18 P.3d 994 (Mont. 2001) (monetary sanction and filing bar until paid for persistent harassment via litigation)