Capital One, NA v. Guthrie, 2017 MT 75

Guthrie obtained a mortgage (2005), modified it twice, sought a third modification in 2008; Chevy Chase (lender) agreed to a partial release contingent on appraisal and possible paydown which Guthrie did not make; no payments since July 2009.
Chevy Chase merged into Capital One, which initiated foreclosure in April 2010; Guthrie asserted equitable estoppel based on the 2008 modification discussions.
Over several years the district court denied Guthrie’s estoppel claim and deferred Capital One’s early attempts to obtain summary relief; litigation continued with multiple motions.
In 2015 Capital One moved for summary judgment supported by exhibits and affidavits (including Huy Pham). Guthrie moved to strike Pham’s affidavit arguing lack of personal knowledge, uncertified documents, and inadequate foundation for the business-records exception.
The presiding judge retired; the Chief Justice temporarily assigned retired Judge Katherine R. Curtis authority over Department 1 law-and-motion matters (Sept–Dec 2015). Judge Curtis denied the motion to strike; later the newly appointed Judge Amy Eddy granted Capital One summary judgment on Dec. 17, 2015.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Capital One)	Defendant's Argument (Guthrie)	Held
Jurisdiction of retired judge to rule on motion to strike	Chief Justice validly assigned Judge Curtis temporary authority over Department 1 matters	Assignment did not include this case/motion because case was not on the initial list and motion to strike was not a standalone law-and-motion item	Assignment was valid; Judge Curtis had authority to rule on the motion
Consideration of documents filed with Capital’s reply	Documents were Guthrie’s own discovery responses and had been in Guthrie’s possession; no prejudice	Late-submitted documents deprived Guthrie of chance to respond	No prejudice; Guthrie created/possessed the documents, so court properly considered them
Admissibility of Pham affidavit and attached records	Pham, as custodian/authorized signer, had personal knowledge and authenticated business records under M. R. Evid. 803(6)	Affidavit lacked personal knowledge; exhibits were hearsay and uncertified	Pham’s affidavit properly authenticated business records; documents admissible under the business-records exception
Grant of summary judgment on equitable estoppel defense	Guthrie produced no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on estoppel	Guthrie relied on the disputed affidavit and related documents to support estoppel	Summary judgment for Capital One affirmed; Guthrie failed to show a material factual dispute

Pinnow v. Montana State Fund, 172 P.3d 1273 (Mont. 2007) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional questions)
Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 313 P.3d 839 (Mont. 2013) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
In re Estate of Harmon, 253 P.3d 821 (Mont. 2011) (summary judgment procedures and burdens)
Roe v. City of Missoula, 221 P.3d 1200 (Mont. 2009) (Rule 56 standards summarized)
Alfson v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 313 P.3d 107 (Mont. 2013) (hearsay exceptions and affidavit foundations in summary judgment)
Bean v. Montana Bd. of Labor Appeals, 965 P.2d 256 (Mont. 1998) (business-records exception requirements)
Rafanelli v. Dale, 924 P.2d 242 (Mont. 1996) (regular practice foundation for business records)
Cushman v. Montana Twentieth Judicial Dist. Court, 360 P.3d 492 (Mont. 2015) (retired judges may be assigned temporary judicial duties)
State ex rel. Wilcox v. District Court, 378 P.2d 209 (Mont. 1963) (interpretation of constitutional assignment of judges)