492 P.3d 1210
Mont.2021Background
- Holms (plaintiff) sued Bretz (defendant) in Silver Bow County on Jan. 6, 2020 for breach of a confidentiality agreement; Holms’ business is in Butte and Bretz resides in Missoula.
- The case was originally assigned to Dept. 2 (Judge Robert Whelan). Holms served Bretz on Jan. 14, 2020.
- Bretz filed a Motion to Change Venue on Feb. 4, 2020 and an answer on Feb. 7, 2020.
- Holms filed a Motion for Substitution of Judge on Feb. 28, 2020; on Apr. 9 Judge Whelan issued an Order Inviting Assumption of Jurisdiction and transferred the case to Dept. 1 (Judge Kurt Krueger).
- Judge Krueger denied Bretz’s Motion to Change Venue and did not rule on Bretz’s motion to return the matter to Judge Whelan; Bretz appealed, arguing the substitution was untimely and thus Judge Krueger lacked jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court held Holms’s substitution motion was untimely, vacated the April 9 transfer order, and remanded for further proceedings before the original judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 30-day deadline to file a plaintiff’s motion for substitution begin under § 3-1-804(1)(a), MCA? | Holms: The statute provides two alternative 30-day periods—either within 30 days after service or within 30 days after an adverse party appears, giving plaintiff a choice. | Bretz: The countdown is triggered by whichever event occurs first (service or appearance); plaintiff must file within 30 days of that first event. | Court: The deadline is triggered once—upon service or an adverse party’s appearance, whichever occurs first. |
| Effect of an untimely substitution motion on later orders (e.g., venue ruling) | Holms: (implicitly) substitution operated and transfer was valid. | Bretz: An untimely substitution is void, so any orders by the substitute judge are void for lack of jurisdiction. | Court: Untimely substitution is void; orders entered after the void substitution (including the denial of venue) are vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Missoula v. Mt. Water Co., 404 Mont. 186, 487 P.3d 15 (Mont. 2021) (standard of review and jurisdictional principles)
- Labair v. Carey, 389 Mont. 366, 405 P.3d 1284 (Mont. 2017) (treatment of substitution motions as questions of law)
- Bullock v. Fox, 395 Mont. 35, 435 P.3d 1187 (Mont. 2019) (statutory interpretation principles)
- In re Estate of Greene, 370 Mont. 490, 305 P.3d 52 (Mont. 2013) (untimely substitution motions are void)
- Collins v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 391 Mont. 378, 418 P.3d 672 (Mont. 2018) (Substitution Rule sets definitive triggering moments)
- Kulstad v. Maniaci, 353 Mont. 467, 221 P.3d 127 (Mont. 2009) (use of statutory interpretation tools)