McCann v. McCann, 425 P.3d 682

Background

Paul McCann Sr. died in 2013; his estate included multiple closely related corporations and a conservatorship for his wife A.M.M.
Paul McCann Jr. and attorney Douglas Wold were appointed co-conservators; corporate affairs were reorganized and recordkeeping improved under their oversight.
In 2014 Genet McCann (an attorney who was later disbarred) sued corporate entities, several family members, and Wold alleging corporate oppression and related misconduct; service on Wold occurred in 2017 shortly before trial.
At a bench trial Genet presented evidence focused on historical corporate record mismanagement, alleged forgeries, and other misconduct; the court found past record problems but that defendants had remedied them and stabilized the corporations.
The district court entered judgment against Genet at the close of her case (treated as judgment on partial findings), dismissed claims against Wold (no evidence of fraud; collateral estoppel on conservatorship actions), and awarded Wold $56,055.50 in fees and costs under the equity exception to the American Rule.
On appeal the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, awarded Wold appellate fees under the Foy exception, remanded to determine the amount of appellate fees, and declared Genet a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal at close of plaintiff's case was erroneous (judgment on partial findings)	McCann: viewing evidence favorably she established corporate oppression based on record mismanagement	Defendants: evidence showed historic problems were remedied and no ongoing oppression by directors/controllers	Affirmed — court properly entered judgment on partial findings; plaintiff failed to prove ongoing illegal/oppressive/fraudulent control
Whether claims against Wold should have proceeded	McCann: Wold exerted control and committed mail fraud/other misconduct supporting oppression claim	Wold: not a director; acted as co-conservator and counsel; no evidence of fraud; collateral estoppel bars relitigation of conservatorship issues	Affirmed — no credible evidence of fraud; claims against Wold unsupported; collateral estoppel relevant
Whether awarding attorney fees to Wold was erroneous	McCann: fees improper, duplicative, barred by laches, and excessive	Wold: suit against him was utterly without merit; he was forced to defend actions taken as a court-appointed officer; pro se and counsel fees reasonable	Affirmed — fees appropriate under narrow Foy equity exception; appellate fees awarded; remanded to calculate appellate award (fees-for-fees disallowed absent exceptional findings)
Whether pre-filing vexatious-litigant order was warranted	McCann: her suits have merit and order improper; no district-court finding	Defendants: McCann has long history of duplicative, harassing, and meritless litigation causing needless expense	Affirmed — Court declares McCann vexatious based on litigation history, motives, burdens caused, prior sanctions, and lack of adequate alternative remedies

Key Cases Cited

In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M., 380 Mont. 451, 356 P.3d 474 (Mont. 2015) (prior appeal in guardianship/conservatorship matter referenced for litigation history)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of A.M.M., 384 Mont. 413, 380 P.3d 736 (Mont. 2016) (prior appeal documenting pattern of frivolous and improper filings)
In re McCann, 391 Mont. 443, 421 P.3d 265 (Mont. 2018) (disciplinary proceeding resulting in disbarment)
Foy v. Anderson, 580 P.2d 114 (Mont. 1978) (equity exception to American Rule for attorney fees where suit is utterly without merit)
Holmstrom Land Co. v. Hunter, 595 P.2d 360 (Mont. 1979) (awarding fees when a party is sued personally for actions taken as a court-appointed officer)
Winer v. Jonal Corp., 545 P.2d 1094 (Mont. 1976) (attorney who represents himself may recover fees)
Swapinski v. Lincoln County, 381 Mont. 138, 357 P.3d 329 (Mont. 2015) (fees-for-fees may be allowed in exceptional equitable cases)
Stokes v. First American Title Co. of Montana, 389 Mont. 245, 406 P.3d 439 (Mont. 2017) (factors for imposing pre-filing orders on vexatious litigants)
Motta v. Granite County Commissioners, 370 Mont. 469, 304 P.3d 720 (Mont. 2013) (articulating factors considered for vexatious-litigant pre-filing orders)