Cascade Development, Inc. v. City of Bozeman
2012 MT 79
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Cascade filed suit against the City of Bozeman in the Montana District Court on December 7, 2007 regarding a subdivision project.
- A summons and complaint were issued the same day, but Cascade did not attempt service for about three years.
- On December 2, 2010, a process server delivered the papers to the Bozeman City Attorney’s Office and spoke with Deputy City Attorney Susan Wordal.
- Cascade claimed Wordal had implied actual or apparent authority to accept service on behalf of the city (under 4(k)); Bozeman argued 4(k) requires service on designated city officials and that Wordal was not such an official.
- The District Court granted Bozeman’s motion to quash service and dismiss the case on July 29, 2011; Cascade appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service complied with M.R. Civ. P. 4(k). | Cascade contends Wordal could receive service via implied/apparent authority. | Bozeman asserts 4(k) is explicit and limits service to designated officials, not Wordal. | No valid service under 4(k); Wordal had neither implied nor apparent authority to accept service. |
| Whether Bozeman is estopped from challenging defective service. | Cascade argues past acceptance of service implies estoppel. | Bozeman did not cause Cascade’s defective service and 4(k) is clear. | Bozeman was not estopped; estoppel doctrine does not apply to mandate strict compliance with 4(k). |
Key Cases Cited
- Doble v. Talbott, 180 Mont. 166 (1979) (service on an individual by agent authority)
- Montana Professional Sports, LLC v. National Indoor Football League, LLC, (MT) 180 P.3d 1142 (2008) (apparent authority to accept service in business office context)
- Bryden v. Lakeside Ventures, LLC, (MT) 218 P.3d 61 (2009) (manager-type acceptance of service reasonable)
- Fonk v. Ulsher, 260 Mont. 379 (1993) (service on city entity requires proper delivery to authorized official)
- Semenza v. Kniss, 2005 MT 268 (2005) (strict compliance with service rules; factual findings reviewed)
- Elk Park Ranch v. Park Co., 282 Mont. 154 (1997) (equitable estoppel prerequisites; knowledge and reliance elements)
- Selley v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., (MT) 299 Mont. 127 (2000) (equitable estoppel boundaries; improper conduct not tolerated)
- Busch v. Atkinson, 278 Mont. 478 (1996) (mandatory, strict rule-based service)