Sullivan v. Cherewick, 2017 MT 38

Background

Owners and developers of Remington Ranch (Henry, Cherewick, Western Investments, and several "Landowners" including the Harters, Sullivan, and Hunt) disputed governance and proposed commercial resort development. Henry and Western Investments owned many lots; Harters filed a UCC-1 financing statement and vendor’s lien after Western failed to pay a promissory note.
Landowners sued to restrain Henry and Cherewick for actions alleged to exceed their authority as officers/directors of the Remington Ranch Association; Henry and Western Investments counterclaimed alleging a multi-count conspiracy to ruin Henry’s business.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Henry and Cherewick on Landowners’ claims, and granted summary judgment to Landowners on Henry’s and Western Investments’ counterclaims, finding inadequate evidence for elements (e.g., unlawful overt act, damages).
Henry and Western Investments appealed dismissal of their counterclaims (abuse of process, defamation, emotional distress, conspiracy, slander of title, tortious interference, punitive damages). Henry and Cherewick also appealed the District Court’s denial of attorney fees after prevailing on Landowners’ claims.
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed: it found abandonment of some claims, insufficient evidence of damages and unlawful act for conspiracy/slander/tortious interference, and held the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying attorney fees given mixed outcomes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counterclaims (conspiracy, slander of title, tortious interference, etc.) survived summary judgment	Henry/Western: filings and group opposition were part of a conspiracy that used unlawful means (false liens) causing millions in damages	Landowners: protests and liens were lawful or unsupported as causing damages; insufficient evidence of meeting-of-minds or proximate damages	Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs failed to prove unlawful overt act and proximate damages; many claims abandoned or speculative
Whether Harters’ liens constitute slander of title	Henry/Western: Harters maliciously published false liens that blocked sales and caused damages	Harters: no provable special damages; other encumbrances existed; buyers were not under contract; Henry admitted not marketing lots	Summary judgment affirmed: unresolved malice may exist but lack of provable damages defeats slander claim
Whether tortious interference was established	Henry/Western: Landowners’ coordinated opposition prevented resort development and caused economic loss	Landowners: Henry lacked ownership/financing and sales evidence; interference causation speculative	Summary judgment affirmed: no admissible evidence of actual damages or causation
Whether Henry/Cherewick were entitled to attorney fees as prevailing parties	Henry/Cherewick: they prevailed on Landowners’ claims and declarations/contract/§35-2-1306 authorize fees	Landowners: litigation produced mixed results; equity and discretion permit denial	Affirmed denial: court did not abuse discretion—neither side was clearly prevailing and statutory discretion applicable

Key Cases Cited

Bird v. Cascade Cnty., 386 P.3d 602 (Mont. 2016) (summary judgment standard)
City of Helena v. Svee, 339 P.3d 32 (Mont. 2014) (standards for awarding attorney fees and review)
Whipps, L.L.C. v. Kaufman, Vidal, Hileman, & Ramlow, P.C., 156 P.3d 11 (Mont. 2007) (prevailing-party determination and abuse of discretion)
Schumacker v. Meridian Oil Co., 956 P.2d 1370 (Mont. 1998) (elements of civil conspiracy)
Simmons Oil Corp. v. Holly Corp., 852 P.2d 523 (Mont. 1993) (civil conspiracy framework)
Pryor v. Babcock Bldg. Corp., 45 P.3d 35 (Mont. 2002) (slander of title definition)
Finstad v. W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., 8 P.3d 778 (Mont. 2000) (punitive damages require underlying liability)
Hughes v. Lynch, 164 P.3d 913 (Mont. 2007) (tortious interference requires proof of actual damages)
State v. Gunderson, 237 P.3d 74 (Mont. 2010) (appellate courts not obliged to develop parties’ legal arguments)
H-D Irrigating, Inc. v. Kimble Props., Inc., 8 P.3d 95 (Mont. 2000) (prevailing-party analysis where both sides gain victories)