Doyle v. Clark, 254 P.3d 570

Doyle owns adjacent property to Clark in Virginia City, Montana, and sought cleanup of Clark's visible junk yard, including abandoned vehicles and debris.
Clark stored unused and repair-needed vehicles on about an acre of his property, which Doyle claimed violated aesthetic and regulatory standards.
Doyle pursued enforcement through multiple channels, including complaints to Madison County Sanitarian Hamler, who issued letters under the Motor Vehicle Recycling and Disposal Act (MVRDA) and related SWMA provisions from 1991 to 2003.
In 1995, Doyle and Clark signed a handwritten document concerning removal of junk cars, which Doyle characterizes as a contract; Clark disputes it created enforceable consideration.
In 2005, Doyle entered a contract with TLC Real Estate contingent on Clark clearing the junk within 180 days; the contract became void when Clark did not comply.
Doyle sued in 2006 for breach of contract and nuisance and also asserted various tort theories; the district court granted summary judgment on some claims and the jury ultimately found for Clark and the other defendants on all claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excluding exhibits/testimony was an abuse of discretion	Doyle contends the court erred by excluding Coleman’s letters and related DEQ materials.	Clark/defendants argue the materials were improper legal conclusions or irrelevant.	No abuse; court properly excluded legal conclusions.
Whether the district court erred by not instructing on breach of contract and negligence	Doyle argues contract and negligence theories were wrongly omitted in favor of promissory estoppel.	Clark contends no enforceable contract existed and negligence theories were properly handled.	No abuse; promissory estoppel appropriately substituted where contract lacked consideration.
Whether the district court abused discretion by capping closing argument with threats of mistrial	Doyle claims the court threatened a mistrial to curtail Coleman references.	Clark asserts no proper record supports Doyle's claim.	No reviewable record; issue declined.
Whether the district court abused discretion in awarding costs	Doyle argues timely costs were not properly filed and thus Clark could not be awarded costs.	Clark contends he timely filed and is entitled to costs.	Abuse; Clark waived costs by filing beyond the five-day rule (sixth business day).

Perdue v. Gagnon Farms, Inc., 314 Mont. 303 (2003 MT 47) (expert testimony cannot state legal conclusions; jury must apply law as instructed)
Peterson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 357 Mont. 293 (2010 MT 187) (limits on expert testimony and proper jury instruction on law)
State v. Robbins, 292 Mont. 23 (1998 MT 297) (judicial instruction on law control over witness testimony)
Wombold v. Assoc. Fin. Serv. Co., 325 Mont. 290 (2004 MT 397) (private right of action required for negligence per se claims)
Karell v. American Cancer Society, 239 Mont. 168 (1989) (timeliness under § 25-10-501, MCA; five-day rule interpreted via Rule 6(a))
Delaware v. K-Decorators, Inc., 293 Mont. 97 (1999 MT 13) (timeliness and costs procedures in Montana)
Stipe v. First Interstate Bank - Polson, 344 Mont. 435 (2008 MT 239) (elements of negligence per se and private right of action considerations)