Remitz v. Remitz, 431 P.3d 338

Heather and Rick Remitz divorced after separation; primary marital asset was a 51% interest in a medical-equipment business. Rick's expert valued the business at $2,248,000 (2013 valuation) and Heather offered no competing valuation at trial.
The Standing Master issued a Decree in May 2017 adopting Rick's valuation and dividing marital assets equally, awarding each party $817,074.
After the Decree was adopted as a final order in September 2017 (lifting an economic restraining order), the business sold in October 2017 for an amount Heather later learned was between $20 million and $32 million—over ten times the valuation used in the Decree.
Heather filed a Rule 60(b) motion in December 2017 seeking relief from the property division (vacatur of property terms), discovery, accounting and preservation of sale proceeds, and a hearing.
The District Court failed to rule within the Rule 60(c)(1) period; the motion was therefore deemed denied by operation of law and Heather appealed.
The Supreme Court found the record insufficient to resolve the merits given unusual procedural delay and extreme valuation disparity, vacated the denial, and remanded to the District Court (not the Standing Master) for limited discovery, a hearing, and a ruling on the Rule 60 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Remitz)	Defendant's Argument (Remitz)	Held
Whether the District Court erred in denying Heather's Rule 60(b) motion	The substantial post-trial sale price is newly discovered evidence or resulted from mistake/surprise and justifies vacatur, discovery, accounting, and reallocation of proceeds	The business appreciation occurred after trial and valuation should be fixed at trial date; Heather failed to file a § 25-11-104 affidavit; objections withdrawn earlier	Vacated the deemed denial and remanded for limited discovery and a hearing; § 25-11-104 inapplicable; no sanctions awarded

Peterson v. Montana Bank, N.A., 687 P.2d 673 (Mont. 1984) (Rule 60 promotes substantial justice)
Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose's Saloon, Inc., 166 P.3d 451 (Mont. 2007) (standards of review for Rule 60(b) motions)
Muri v. Frank, 18 P.3d 1022 (Mont. 2001) (state Rule 60 modeled on federal Rule 60; federal decisions instructive)
Perez-Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d 281 (1st Cir.) (court-created surprise can justify relief)
Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.) (court error can excuse procedural default)
Ellingsworth v. Chrysler, 665 F.2d 180 (7th Cir.) (court confusion can justify relief)