Marriage of Guill
2014 MT 316
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Douglas Guill was convicted and incarcerated; divorce proceedings (dissolution) awarded Candace $564,900 plus interest in 2007; real property (Heron, MT house) deeded to Candace after Douglas could not pay.
- Candace rented the Heron property to Rick Christensen (Douglas’s agent); Christensen operated Douglas’s HVAC business from the property and later removed numerous fixtures and personal property.
- Candace evicted Christensen in March 2011, discovered missing items, and the District Court later ordered Doug and Christensen to return or compensate for the items; when not fully satisfied, the court entered judgment against them for $104,552 (Oct. 5, 2012).
- Candace sold the Heron property “as is” in 2012 for $200,000 and applied net proceeds toward her dissolution award; after partial satisfaction and offsets, the District Court amended the judgment (Oct. 29, 2013) to $103,590.44 and authorized execution against real property and “any business assets owned by any business owned and/or operated by either or both Petitioners,” and allowed foreign judgment entry in Idaho.
- Douglas appealed the amended judgment, arguing the business-asset language was overbroad and that he no longer owned a business; he also raised arguments on behalf of third parties (his current wife Nicole and Christensen).
- The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the Amended Judgment, declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or by Douglas on behalf of others, found Douglas a vexatious litigant, awarded Candace appellate costs/fees (to be determined on remand), and imposed filing restrictions on Douglas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Douglas) | Defendant's Argument (Candace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court had authority to attach “any business assets owned by any business owned and/or operated by either or both petitioners” | Language is overbroad; Douglas’s sole proprietorship was dissolved/inactive so he does not own any business; could unfairly reach unrelated businesses | Judgment enforcement may reach assets reasonably necessary to satisfy court-ordered money judgment; execution and foreign-judgment entry were authorized by prior judgments | Affirmed: Court had authority; Douglas failed to preserve objection below and raised new factual claims on appeal, so issue not considered on merits |
| Whether Douglas may raise claims on behalf of third parties (Nicole; Christensen) | Argued entities he is connected to were not joined and cannot be subjected to seizure | Candace relied on record and that Douglas lacks authority to represent others | Held: Douglas cannot represent others; court disregarded arguments advanced on behalf of Nicole and Christensen |
| Whether objection to amended-judgment wording preserved for appeal | Argued now on appeal that wording is inconsistent with prior judgment | Candace noted Douglas did not move to alter/amend under Rule 59(e) or object in district court | Held: Issue not preserved; first raised on appeal and reliant on facts outside the record, thus untimely |
| Whether sanctions are appropriate for repeated litigation | Douglas continued to litigate and delay enforcement | Candace requested sanctions and costs for vexatious conduct | Held: Court found Douglas a vexatious litigant, awarded costs/fees to Candace (remand to determine amount), barred further filings against Candace without court approval |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guill, 355 Mont. 490, 228 P.3d 1152 (2010) (earlier appellate decision in the related litigation)
- State v. Guill, 359 Mont. 225, 248 P.3d 826 (2011) (subsequent appellate decision in the related litigation)
- In re Estate of Hannum, 366 Mont. 1, 285 P.3d 463 (2012) (standard of review for legal conclusions)
- Day v. Payne, 280 Mont. 273, 929 P.2d 864 (1996) (issues raised first on appeal are untimely)
- Traders State Bank v. Mann, 258 Mont. 226, 852 P.2d 604 (1993) (non-lawyers may not represent others)
- Turner v. Mountain Eng’g & Constr., 276 Mont. 55, 915 P.2d 799 (1996) (overruling on other grounds acknowledged)
- Hartsoe v. Tucker, 371 Mont. 539, 309 P.3d 39 (2013) (authority to impose sanctions for vexatious litigation)