Johnson Farms, Inc. v. Halland
291 P.3d 1096
Mont.2012Background
- Johnson Farms and Floyd Johnson sued Ethel Halland for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust provisions relating to Dora Johnson's estate and Johnson Farms, Inc.
- Dora Johnson created a trust designating herself as trustee; upon Dora’s death, shares were to go to her sons Ray and Floyd and cash to Ethel, Phyllis, and Kathy.
- Ethel, as Dora’s power of attorney and former secretary/officer, coordinated the farm's finances and later participated in a family agreement transferring control to Floyd and Ray.
- The family agreement in 2005 shifted management to Floyd and Ray; Ethel received cash and ceased as an officer.
- Johnson filed suit in 2009 seeking an accounting and alleging misappropriation and gifts to family members; Ethel moved for summary judgment in 2011 on statute of limitations and lack of genuine issues of material fact.
- The district court granted summary judgment, and this Court affirms, holding claims barred by statute of limitations and awarding fees to Ethel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Johnson’s claims barred by the statute of limitations? | Johnson argued claims grounded in a writing; equitable tolling and discovery rule apply. | Ethel argued claims time-barred; no genuine issues of material fact. | Yes; claims barred by statutes of limitations. |
| Did equitable estoppel toll the statute of limitations? | Equitable estoppel prevented invocation of the limitations period. | No convincing concealment or knowledge to justify estoppel. | Equitable estoppel not tolled here. |
| Should Johnson pay Ethel’s attorneys’ fees and costs? | Attorneys’ fees improperly awarded; not properly objected to. | Fees/costs warranted under indemnity and trust provisions. | Yes; fees and costs awarded to Ethel; remand for costs on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Action Enters. by & Through Lindeman v. McCalla, 259 Mont. 167 (1993) (a tort/contract choice based on gravamen of action)
- Weible v. Ronan State Bank, 238 Mont. 235 (1989) (gravamen determines applicable statute of limitations)
- Tin Cup County Water v. Garden City Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2008 MT 434 (2008) (gravamen controls contract vs tort limitations; not a contract claim here)
- Northern Montana Hosp. v. Knight, 248 Mont. 310 (1991) (limits on choosing theory when not tied to a contract provision)
- Erker v. Kester, 1999 MT 231 (1999) (affirming affirmance on correct legal result regardless of reasoning)
- In re Formation of East Bench Irrigation Dist., 2009 MT 135 (2009) (comity of rulings and standard of review for district court decisions)
- Cascade Dev., Inc. v. City of Bozeman, 2012 MT 79 (2012) (six-element equitable estoppel test applied; burden on movant)
- Pankratz Farms, Inc. v. Pankratz, 2004 MT 180 (2004) (six-element equitable estoppel; threshold of concealment and reliance)
- Young v. Datsopoulos, 249 Mont. 466 (1991) (recognizes discovery issues in complex claims; not applicable for concealment here)