Ronning v. Yellowstone County, 2011 MT 79

Yellowstone County seized about 200 dogs from Linda Kapsa in December 2008; the dogs were housed at MetraPark and cared for by volunteers including Ronning and Dennehy.
Kapsa pleaded nolo contendere in July 2009; in the plea, the State and County sought disposal of the dogs to a rescue with adoption preferences for volunteers.
The plea agreement required Kapsa to join a petition for disposal of the dogs with a rescue and to waive/limit ownership rights; ownership of dogs transferred to NESR after the plea.
NESR began placing the dogs; Ronning sought to adopt four dogs (Joy, Love, Happy, Eddie) but only some were available immediately per the plea terms.
Ronning and Dennehy filed suit for breach of contract seeking specific performance to obtain Love and Joy; the district court granted summary judgment for Yellowstone County and NESR.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Ronning and Dennehy intended third party beneficiaries of the plea agreement?	Ronning/Dennehy claim beneficiary status and desired adoption priority.	They are at most incidental beneficiaries; no explicit intent to benefit them as third parties.	No; they are not intended third party beneficiaries.

State v. Rardon, 327 Mont. 228 (2005 MT 129) (plea agreements governed by contract principles; termination after performance)
Cheff v. BNSF Railway Co., 358 Mont. 144 (2010 MT 235) (summary judgment standard and right result for the wrong reasons)