In Re the Marriage of Orcutt
2011 MT 107
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Charlene Orcutt appeals a District Court order denying her Amended M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion to set aside and amend the dissolution decree.
- Charlene and Kelly Orcutt were married in 1984; petition for dissolution was filed in 2009 and trial occurred January 11, 2010.
- The marital home was valued only by Kelly’s tax records at $22,423; no appraisal or realtor testimony was admitted.
- Charlene’s prior attorney failed to disclose a realtor as an expert and did not present evidence on the home’s value.
- Charlene filed a 60(b)(6) motion arguing gross neglect by her attorney; the court denied the motion, prompting appeal.
- The Supreme Court reverses, holding the district court abused its discretion and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion denying 60(b)(6). | Charlene argues attorney gross neglect prevented full merits presentation. | Kelly contends Rule 60(b)(6) relief not warranted; other subsections apply or don’t. | Yes, district court abused discretion; remand for relief under 60(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose's Saloon, Inc., 338 Mont. 423, 166 P.3d 451 (2007 MT 202) (abuse of discretion standard for 60(b) motions; exceptions)
- In re Marriage Hopper, 297 Mont. 225, 991 P.2d 960 (1999 MT 310) (extraordinary circumstances under 60(b)(6))
- Skogen v. Murray, 337 Mont. 139, 157 P.3d 1143 (2007 MT 104) (gross neglect criteria and relief under 60(b)(6))
- Karlen v. Evans, 915 P.2d 232 (1996 MT) (attorney misconduct standards under 60(b)(6))
- Lords v. Newman, 688 P.2d 290 (1984 MT) (attorney abandonment and client relief under 60(b))
- Twenty-Seventh Street, Inc. v. Johnson, 716 P.2d 210 (1986 MT) (attorney withdrawal and client relief considerations)
- Maulding v. Hardman, 847 P.2d 292 (1993 MT) (misconduct of opposing counsel and relief grounds)
- Falcon v. Faulkner, 903 P.2d 197 (1995 MT) (bad legal advice not enough for 60(b)(6) relief)
- Schmidt v. Jomac, Inc., 639 P.2d 517 (1982 MT) (unavailing for 60(b)(6) where client not improperly advised)