Goodover v. Oblander
2017 MT 130N
Mont.2017Background
- From 2012, Smith Oblander (law firm) represented Robert Hopkins in litigation against Pat Goodover arising from Hopkins’s foreclosure and alleged conversion of personal property after eviction.
- The Hopkins litigation lasted ~3 years and was settled in December 2015.
- In March 2016 Goodover sued Smith Oblander alleging actual and constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, actual malice (as basis for punitive damages), abuse of process, and malicious prosecution arising from the Hopkins litigation.
- Smith Oblander moved to dismiss under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court converted the motion to one for summary judgment under Rule 12(d). Goodover filed a Rule 56(f) motion seeking discovery time; the court denied it.
- The district court admitted the Hopkins–Goodover settlement agreement under seal and granted summary judgment for Smith Oblander, finding Goodover’s claims lacked required elements; Goodover appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion of 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment and denial of Goodover’s Rule 56(f) discovery request | Goodover argued he needed additional discovery to oppose summary judgment and that the court should not convert without allowing discovery | Smith Oblander argued Goodover did not show how requested discovery would preclude summary judgment or be material | Court denied Rule 56(f); conversion and denial affirmed — Goodover failed to show proposed discovery would affect summary judgment outcome |
| Admissibility of settlement agreement under M. R. Evid. 408 | Goodover argued Rule 408 bars admission of settlement terms to show liability or that he did not prevail in Hopkins case | Smith Oblander argued the settlement was admissible for a permitted purpose (showing Hopkins suit terminated by settlement and that Goodover was not prevailing party; supports probable cause/no improper motive) | Court admitted settlement under seal for non-liability purpose (to show indecisive termination per Vehrs); admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Merits of claims: fraud, negligent misrepresentation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, punitive damages (actual malice) | Goodover argued factual and legal bases existed for each claim and punitive damages for actual malice | Smith Oblander argued elements of each claim were not met and settlement showed probable cause/no improper motive | Summary judgment affirmed — district court correctly found required elements lacking; actual malice is a punitive-damages standard, not an independent claim |
| Appealability of Rule 11(b) claim | Goodover raised a Rule 11(b) claim | Smith Oblander noted Rule 11(b) claim is not appealable | Court noted Goodover conceded Rule 11(b) claim is not appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Vehrs v. Piquette, 684 P.2d 476 (Mont. 1984) (a proceeding that terminates indecisively by settlement does not satisfy malicious prosecution requirements)