412 P.3d 1048
Mont.2018Background
- In April 2016 Whitehall mayor Dale Davis and four council members (the Elected Officers) faced recall petitions submitted by resident Lynn Nemeth; Jefferson County Election Administrator Bonnie Ramey approved the petitions after consulting counsel.
- Nemeth circulated petitions and separate “fact sheets”; the Elected Officers challenged the petitions as not substantially conforming to statutory form, sought to enjoin the recall under § 2-16-615(2), MCA, and later added Nemeth and a declaratory judgment under the UDJA.
- Nemeth indicated she would withdraw the petitions; the Elected Officers sought attorneys’ fees and costs from Nemeth and Jefferson County, which were refused, so the Elected Officers continued litigation.
- The District Court found the petitions and circulation sheets did not substantially conform to statute, granted injunctive and declaratory relief, but later denied the Elected Officers’ requests for attorney fees, costs, and disbursements.
- The Elected Officers appealed the denial of fees and costs; the Supreme Court reviewed whether fees and costs were available under (1) the UDJA § 27-8-313, (2) § 25-10-711(1)(b) (civil actions against political subdivisions), and (3) § 25-10-101(8) (costs for injunctions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney fees may be awarded under the UDJA, § 27-8-313 | Elected Officers: declaratory judgment was necessary/proper; fees allowed under UDJA | Nemeth/County: recall statute and precedent show injunctive relief (not fees) is proper; equity disfavors UDJA fees here | Denied — equity does not support UDJA fees because full relief was available under the Montana Recall Act; UDJA award not proper |
| Whether fees may be awarded against Jefferson County under § 25-10-711(1)(b) for frivolous/bad-faith defense | Elected Officers: County’s defense was frivolous because petitions were facially invalid; refusal to settle was bad faith | County: relied on outside counsel who approved petitions; litigation position was within legitimate argument even if wrong | Denied — County’s defense was not frivolous or in bad faith; no abuse of discretion in denying fees |
| Whether costs may be awarded against Nemeth under § 25-10-101(8) for an injunction | Elected Officers: they prevailed in an action for injunction and thus are entitled to costs against Nemeth as a matter of course | Nemeth: injunction was not sought or entered against her; the injunction was against the County | Denied — costs under § 25-10-101(8) not available because injunction enjoined the County, not Nemeth |
| Whether District Court’s orders lacked adequate findings | Elected Officers: orders insufficiently detailed; require findings | Respondents: legal question decided; prior findings support conclusion | Denied — although more detailed findings would be prudent, there was adequate legal basis and no need to speculate about reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Trustees of Ind. Univ. v. Buxbaum, 315 Mont. 210 (discusses factors for UDJA fee awards)
- Braach v. Graybeal, 296 Mont. 138 (attorney fees not available to elected officers seeking injunction under Montana Recall Act)
- Sheehy v. Ferda, 235 Mont. 63 (injunction is proper relief for elected officer challenging recall-petition sufficiency)
- Western Tradition P’ship v. Attorney Gen. of Mont., 367 Mont. 112 (interpretation of UDJA fee scope)
- Mont. Immigrant Justice Alliance v. Bullock, 383 Mont. 318 (equitable inquiry for UDJA fee awards)
- Kelleher v. Bd. of Soc. Work Exam’rs, 283 Mont. 188 (attorney fees available at common law in successful mandamus actions)