Schoof v. Nesbit
373 Mont. 226
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Schoof, a Montana resident, sued to challenge the Custer County Commissioners’ cash in lieu policy for elected officials’ health insurance.
- The policy was allegedly adopted during an unannounced July 26, 2007 meeting, with inadequate notice and minutes failing to disclose the substance.
- The public learned of the policy on August 17, 2011, and Schoof filed suit on September 16, 2011 to invalidate the decision and recover allegedly illegal payments.
- Schoof’s Third Amended Complaint asserted right to know, right of participation, declaratory relief, and mandamus to recover payments.
- The district court dismissed the right to know and right of participation claims as time-barred under § 2-3-213, MCA, and later dismissed the other claims for lack of standing and discretionary mandamus susceptibility.
- The Montana Supreme Court reversed in part, holding Schoof has standing and remanding for further proceedings, with tolling considerations analyzed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Schoof have standing to pursue right to know and right of participation? | Schoof asserts a concrete, personal stake as a citizen observing and participating in government decisions. | Fleenor bars standing absent a personal injury beyond general citizenry impact. | Yes; Schoof has standing. |
| Was the right to know and right of participation claims time-barred under § 2-3-213, MCA? | Schoof urges tolling via discovery principles to delay the 30-day clock. | Statutes govern with a 30-day period; discovery tolling not applicable here. | No; tolling applies, and the claims may proceed. |
| If the cash in lieu policy is void, can mandamus compel recovery under § 7-4-2714, MCA? | County Attorney should recover illegal payments if the policy is void. | Mandamus is hypothetical absent a final order setting aside the decision. | Hypothetical; not decided on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleenor v. Darby Sch. Dist., 2006 MT 31 (Mont. 2006) (standing requires personal injury beyond general public; overruled here)
- Kadillak v. Anaconda Co., 184 Mont. 127 (Mont. 1979) (statutory limitations and jurisdiction; pre-Senate Bill 177 context)
- Weidow v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2010 MT 292 (Mont. 2010) (equitable tolling framework and limitations tolling considerations)
- Cringle II, 2012 MT 143 (Mont. 2012) (statutory tolling debates; concurrence discusses Cringle II concerns)
- Lozeau v. GEICO Indem. Co., 2009 MT 136 (Mont. 2009) (three-part test for equitable tolling and notice)
- Harrison v. Chance, 244 Mont. 215 (Mont. 1990) (timing and policy considerations in limitations analysis)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court 1985) (constitutional injury and accrual under state limitations)
- Akins v. Ned. Election Commn., 524 U.S. 11 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (injury in fact when rights are violated; abstract vs concrete)