Spencer v. Beck
2010 MT 256
Mont.2010Background
- On 7 Dec 2010, Montana Supreme Court reviewed Spencer v. Beck, a legal malpractice dispute stemming from Spencer's criminal representation.
- Spencer filed a Feb 3, 2010 Complaint alleging attorney Beck grossly neglected his duties, including late brief filing and failure to pursue federal postconviction relief.
- Beck did not initially answer; Spencer moved for default; Beck filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Beck later filed a general answer; Clerk denied the 12(b)(6) motion for lack of accompanying brief; district court set a scheduling conference.
- On May 3, 2010, the district court sua sponte dismissed Spencer’s complaint, converting it into a petition for postconviction relief and holding it untimely under § 46-21-102(1)(b).
- Spencer timely appealed, arguing the claim was a legal malpractice claim, not a postconviction relief petition; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by sua sponte recharacterizing the claim and dismissing as untimely | Spencer contends the complaint asserts legal malpractice, not postconviction relief. | Beck contends the court properly treated it as postconviction relief and dismissed as untimely. | Yes; district court erred in sua sponte recharacterization and dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ereth v. Cascade County, 81 P.3d 463 (2003 MT 328) (two-track approach; malpractice claim can coexist with postconviction relief)
- Plouffe v. State, 314 Mont. 413, 66 P.3d 316 (2003 MT 62) (de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissal; claims viewed in plaintiff’s favor)
- McKinnon v. Western Sugar Coop. Corp., 355 Mont. 120, 225 P.3d 1221 (2010 MT 24) (standard for determining whether a complaint states a claim)
- Meagher v. Butte-Silver Bow City-County, 337 Mont. 339, 160 P.3d 552 (2007 MT 129) (12(b)(6) standard—allegations taken as true)
- Davis v. State, 344 Mont. 300, 187 P.3d 654 (2008 MT 226) (due process concerns when courts act on their own initiative to dismiss)
- Hoveland v. Petaja, 252 Mont. 268, 893 P.2d 392 (1992) (clarifies dismissal standards under Rule 12(b)(6))