Gibbs v. Altenhofen, 330 P.3d 458

Gibbs family owned Dawson County ranch; R’Delle Gibbs executed a trust in 2000, with half interest held in trust for family; upon death, trust reorganized ownership between Tim and Rod.
Nordtvedt, a CHMS accountant, was trustee after Altenhofen was removed in 2005; Nordtvedt later advised potential misappropriation claims.
In 2005, Nordtvedt sought a judicial determination of trust restrictions on the trustee’s power to sell trust property; Nordtvedt moved for summary judgment and won in 2006.
Gibbses filed a July 11, 2008 complaint for breach of fiduciary duties against Altenhofen, Nordtvedt, and CHMS; Nordtvedt moved for summary judgment again in 2013 and was granted.
District Court held claims against Nordtvedt barred by claim preclusion, judicial estoppel, and issue preclusion; some claims related to Altenhofen and fees were time-barred.
Court remanded certain Nordtvedt claims for further proceedings while affirming others; dismissed Altenhofen on statute-of-limitations grounds; Montana law applied pre-UtC 2013.
Gibbs appeal addressed the preclusion, estoppel, and limitation issues; standard of review is de novo for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claim preclusion bars Gibbses' claims against Nordtvedt	Gibbs argues new claims; not identical to prior action.	Nordtvedt argues prior judgment and related issues preclude re-litigation.	Partially affirmed; some claims barred, others survive remand.
Whether Gibbses' claims are barred by judicial estoppel	Trust argued sale was appropriate; Gibbs now challenge it.	Lee consented via buy/sell; estoppel applies to Gibbs as successors.	Held barred for those claims; estoppel applied.
Whether Gibbses' claims are barred by issue preclusion	Sale propriety not identical to fiduciary breach claims.	Sale decision subsumed issues; preclusion applies.	Some claims barred; some not, remand for remaining claims.
Whether there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment	Potential factual disputes exist.	Legal issues control; no material facts warranting trial.	Not necessary to decide due to partial reversal/remand.
Whether Altenhofen’s claim was timely under the statute of limitations	Discovery of claim occurred Oct 2006; timely under 3-year statute.	Discovery occurred by 2005; claim barred.	District Court proper applying 3-year statute; Altenhofen barred.

Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins. Co., 285 P.3d 494 (Mont. 2012) (elements of claim preclusion; final judgment on merits)
Vogel v. Intercontinental Truck Body, Inc., 137 P.3d 573 (Mont. 2006) (judicial estoppel elements)
McDaniel v. State, 208 P.3d 817 (Mont. 2009) (four-element test for issue preclusion)
Blonder-Tongue Lab., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (1971) (due process; full and fair opportunity to litigate)