Spencer v. Beck
2010 MT 256
| Mont. | 2010Background
- Spencer filed a complaint for legal malpractice against Beck in the Montana Supreme Court, alleging gross negligence in Beck's handling of his criminal case and failure to pursue postconviction relief.
- The District Court converted Spencer's complaint into a petition for postconviction relief and dismissed it as untimely under § 46-21-102(1)(b) after Beck failed to timely answer or file a brief.
- Beck later filed an answer; the Clerk denied Beck's Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim due to lack of brief, and the court set a scheduling conference.
- Without notice, the District Court sua sponte dismissed Spencer's complaint, indicating it resembled a postconviction petition rather than a malpractice claim.
- Spencer appeals, contending the complaint is a timely legal malpractice claim within a three-year discovery window and not a postconviction petition.
- The Montana Supreme Court reverses, holding the District Court erred in sua sponte recharacterizing the claim and dismissing it as untimely; remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred in treating the malpractice claim as postconviction relief and dismissing as untimely | Spencer argues the claim is a legal malpractice action, timely within discovery window. | Beck argues the claim is a postconviction petition and untimely under § 46-21-102(1)(b). | District Court erred; remand for proper evaluation of a malpractice claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ereth v. Cascade County, 318 Mont. 355, 81 P.3d 463 (2003 MT 328) (two-track approach for pursuing postconviction relief and legal malpractice claims in criminal representation)
- Plouffe v. State, 314 Mont. 413, 66 P.3d 316 (2003 MT 62) (de novo review of 12(b)(6) determinations; complaint viewed in plaintiff's favor)
- Hoveland v. Petaja, 252 Mont. 268, 893 P.2d 392 (1992) (standard for dismissal under 12(b)(6) (beyond doubt, plaintiff cannot prove a claim))
- McKinnon v. Western Sugar Coop. Corp., 355 Mont. 120, 225 P.3d 1221 (2010 MT 24) (pleading standard; state law requirements)
- Meagher v. Butte-Silver Bow City-County, 337 Mont. 339, 160 P.3d 552 (2007 MT 129) (elements of a tort claim and duty of care)
- Davis v. State, 344 Mont. 300, 187 P.3d 654 (2008 MT 226) (due process considerations in sua sponte judicial actions)
- Hauschulz v. Michael Law Firm, 306 Mont. 102, 30 P.3d 357 (2001 MT 160) (elements of legal malpractice claim (duty, breach, injury, proximate cause))