Matter of A.M.M.
2016 MT 213
| Mont. | 2016Background
- A.M.M., born 1922, was found incapacitated in March 2014; the court appointed Casey Emerson guardian and Paul Jr., Timothy, and Douglas Wold joint conservators; Timothy later withdrew as co-conservator.
- Guardian moved for a preliminary injunction (and TRO) in Jan 2015 to restrict Timothy and his sister Genet’s interactions with A.M.M., alleging their conduct caused stress worsening her dementia and health.
- The court held a show-cause hearing Jan 7, 2015; Genet attempted a last-minute withdrawal as Timothy’s counsel and did not appear; the court denied the withdrawal and denied Timothy leave to proceed pro se.
- On Feb 4, 2015 the court entered a preliminary injunction limiting Timothy and Genet’s visits and prohibiting certain topics and derogatory remarks in A.M.M.’s presence; it required return of keys and allowed limited church and morning visits with supervision.
- Genet repeatedly filed motions alleging judicial and opposing-counsel misconduct and sought recusal; the court found these filings frivolous, concluded she violated Rule 11, imposed attorney-fee sanctions, and restricted her ability to file further pleadings without a licensed Montana attorney’s signature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preliminary injunction abused discretion | Timothy/Genet: injunction violated A.M.M.’s and their constitutional rights and denied Tim a hearing when counsel withdrawal was rejected | Guardian/Co-Conservators: injunction protected incapacitated person’s health; hearing provided opportunity to be heard; withdrawal was untimely and noncompliant with rules | Court: no abuse of discretion; injunction reasonable, hearing procedures followed, and Timothy/Genet lacked standing to raise A.M.M.’s constitutional claims |
| Whether judge should have recused | Genet: prior association between judge and Wold and employment of Wold’s daughter created bias (judicial-conduct rules violated) | Judge/Co-Conservators: no affidavit, no factual basis, procedural requirements for disqualification not met | Court: denial of recusal affirmed; Genet failed to follow §3-1-805 and offered no evidence of bias |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions were erroneous | Genet: sanctions were unfair; her filings were well-grounded | Court/others: repeated frivolous, vitriolic, unsupported allegations after warning; filings imposed burdens and costs | Court: sanctions affirmed; Rule 11 violation supported by record and sanctioning court did not err |
| Standing to litigate A.M.M.’s constitutional claims | Timothy/Genet argued they could assert A.M.M.’s rights | Opposing parties: Timothy lacks standing based on prior appellate decision (A.M.M. I); Genet likewise lacks standing | Court: Timothy and Genet lack standing to raise A.M.M.’s constitutional claims; prior precedent controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. St. James Healthcare, 348 Mont. 68, 199 P.3d 810 (Mont. 2008) (district court has broad discretion on preliminary injunctions)
- In re Charles M. Bair Family Trust, 343 Mont. 138, 183 P.3d 61 (Mont. 2008) (standards for reviewing findings of fact and conclusions of law)
- State v. Dunsmore, 378 Mont. 514, 347 P.3d 1220 (Mont. 2015) (de novo review of judge disqualification questions under Code of Judicial Conduct)
- Byrum v. Andren, 337 Mont. 167, 159 P.3d 1062 (Mont. 2007) (de novo review of Rule 11 determinations)
- Stewart v. Rice, 369 Mont. 203, 296 P.3d 1174 (Mont. 2013) (strict compliance required with attorney-withdrawal notice rules)
- In re Estate of Bayers, 295 Mont. 89, 983 P.2d 339 (Mont. 1999) (guardianship proceedings focus on best interests of protected person)
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M., 380 Mont. 451, 356 P.3d 474 (Mont. 2015) (prior appellate decision addressing standing and related matters)