470 P.3d 188
Mont.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Gottlob et al.) sued Glacier County and county officials in a Fourth Amended Complaint alleging: improper disbursement of protested property taxes, unlawful levies/overspending of county budgets (2015–2019), breaches of fiduciary duties, and a constitutional challenge to the Single Audit Act; they sought declaratory relief, refunds or levy reductions, class certification, and fees.
- County moved to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs have no express or implied private right to enforce the challenged statutory duties.
- The District Court denied the 12(b)(1) motion, concluding §§ 15-1-406–408, MCA, provide an express or implied private remedy for tax-related enforcement and thus confer subject-matter jurisdiction for plaintiffs’ County-focused claims.
- County appealed interlocutory under Rule 12(b)(1). The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the District Court erred in denying dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court held the District Court did not err: Montana district courts have jurisdiction over all civil matters, and the County’s challenge was, in substance, a Rule 12(b)(6) failure-to-state-theory rather than a true subject-matter defect; the Court declined to convert the appeal into a merits (12(b)(6)) review and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred by denying the County’s 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Gottlob: §§ 15-1-406–408, MCA, create an express or implied private right and remedies to enforce tax/audit/budget statutes, so court has jurisdiction | County: No private right or remedy exists to privately enforce the asserted statutory duties, so claims implicate no subject-matter jurisdiction | Affirmed — District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; County’s arguments are substantive (12(b)(6)) not jurisdictional |
| Whether appellate court should reach merits now (treat denial as 12(b)(6)) | Gottlob: District Court’s ruling supports proceeding on claims | County: Appellate review should resolve merits now because no private remedy exists | Denied — Court declines to convert to 12(b)(6) interlocutory review; ordinary interlocutory rules control and merits remain for lower court consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Stowe v. Big Sky Vacation Rentals, Inc., 398 Mont. 91 (distinguishing subject-matter jurisdiction from failure-to-state claims)
- Larson v. State, 394 Mont. 167 (distinguishing jurisdiction, justiciability, and substantive cognizability)
- Harrington v. Energy W. Inc., 380 Mont. 298 (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Pickett v. Cortese, 375 Mont. 320 (declining to suspend appellate rules to reach otherwise unappealable pretrial rulings)
- Ballas v. Missoula City Bd. of Adjustment, 340 Mont. 56 (refusing to relabel substantive issues as jurisdictional to obtain immediate appeal)
- Stanley v. Lemire, 334 Mont. 489 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by consent)
- Lorang v. Fortis Ins. Co., 345 Mont. 12 (discussion on difference between jurisdictional and substantive issues)