In re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M., 380 P.3d 736

A.M.M., born 1922, was adjudicated incapacitated; guardian (Casey Emerson) and co-conservators (Paul McCann Jr. and Douglas Wold) were appointed; Timothy withdrew as co-conservator in Oct. 2014.
Guardian sought a preliminary injunction (Jan. 2015) to restrict Timothy and Genet’s interactions with A.M.M., alleging their conduct caused stress worsening her dementia.
At the Jan. 7, 2015 show-cause hearing Genet (an attorney and daughter) attempted a last-minute withdrawal as Timothy’s counsel; the court denied withdrawal and denied Timothy leave to appear pro se.
The court entered a preliminary injunction limiting visits and prohibiting stress-inducing topics and derogatory remarks; it allowed limited visits and preserved ability to seek modification.
Genet filed a motion to recuse the judge and accused opposing counsel and the guardian of misconduct; the court found the allegations unsupported, concluded Rule 11 violations, imposed monetary sanctions, and barred Genet from further filings without a licensed Montana lawyer.
Timothy and Genet appealed, raising multiple claims; the Court of Appeals (Mont.) affirmed, focusing on three dispositive issues: the injunction, recusal denial, and Rule 11 sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting the preliminary injunction	Timothy/Genet: injunction violated A.M.M.’s and their constitutional rights; procedural denial of counsel change denied hearing	Guardian: injunction necessary to protect incapacitated person; hearing held; counsel-change rules not followed	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; parties lacked standing to assert A.M.M.’s rights; procedural rules justified denial of last-minute counsel change
Whether the district court erred by denying Genet’s motion to recuse Judge Manley	Genet: prior associations and employment of opposing counsel’s daughter created bias and warrant recusal	Court/Co-conservators: allegations unsupported, no affidavit under § 3-1-805, and Code of Judicial Conduct not violated	Affirmed — recusal properly denied; Genet failed to follow statutory affidavit procedure and provided no reasonable factual basis
Whether the district court erred by imposing Rule 11 sanctions on Genet	Genet: recusal motion was well-founded; sanctions were unfair	Court/Co-conservators: repeated vitriolic, unsupported filings after warnings justified sanctions under M. R. Civ. P. 11	Affirmed — sanctions appropriate; filings lacked reasonable inquiry and evidentiary support; court’s findings not clearly erroneous

Cole v. St. James Healthcare, 199 P.3d 810 (Mont. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for preliminary injunctions)
In re Charles M. Bair Family Trust, 183 P.3d 61 (Mont. 2008) (standard of review for findings of fact and conclusions of law)
State v. Dunsmore, 347 P.3d 1220 (Mont. 2015) (de novo review of judicial disqualification issues under Code of Judicial Conduct)
Byrum v. Andren, 159 P.3d 1062 (Mont. 2007) (de novo review for Rule 11 determinations)
In re Estate of Bayers, 983 P.2d 339 (Mont. 1999) (guardianship proceedings focus on best interests of the protected person)
Stewart v. Rice, 296 P.3d 1174 (Mont. 2013) (requirement of strict compliance with court rule procedures for attorney withdrawal)
Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 244 P.3d 321 (Mont. 2010) (appellate court will not consider undeveloped or unsupported arguments)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M., 356 P.3d 474 (Mont. 2015) (prior appeal in this matter referenced for standing and background)