Wallace v. Spencer Law Office, 495 P.3d 1047

Terry Wallace appealed a district court's summary-judgment dismissal and its finding that he was a vexatious litigant in the First Judicial District; this Court affirmed those rulings in a companion opinion.
Appellees asked the Montana Supreme Court to extend the vexatious-litigant designation statewide and impose a pre-filing requirement for Wallace in all Montana courts.
The Court reviewed Wallace's long history of frivolous, harassing, and duplicative litigation (including Serrania litigation and a dismissed federal suit), his abusive conduct during proceedings, and his suspension from practice for misconduct.
The Court applied its established five-factor test for pre-filing orders (litigation history; motive/good faith; representation by counsel; burden/expense caused; adequacy of lesser sanctions) and found each factor weighed against Wallace.
The Court concluded monetary sanctions and other remedies had proven ineffective and that a statewide pre-filing order was necessary to protect courts, parties, and judicial resources.
Relief ordered: Wallace must obtain pre-filing approval from the court where he seeks to file before submitting any documents to any Montana court; courts may prohibit filings that are harassing, frivolous, or not legally cognizable; the Clerk will notify Montana courts, the State Bar, Disciplinary Counsel, and Wallace.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court may limit access to courts via a statewide pre-filing order	Wallace contested vexatious determination but did not contest need for statewide relief in reply	Appellees argued Wallace's conduct occurred across districts and statewide pre-filing is needed to protect courts	Court held access may be limited where rationally related to state interests; statewide pre-filing order appropriate
Whether Wallace's litigation history supports a pre-filing order	Wallace disputed findings but offered little substantive counter-evidence	Appellees presented record of serial frivolous suits, sanctions, and abusive conduct	Court found history showed vexatious, harassing, duplicative litigation
Whether Wallace acted with an objectively good-faith expectation of prevailing	Wallace maintained his claims and appealed prior rulings	Appellees argued Wallace pursued claims to harass and burden rather than to prevail	Court found Wallace lacked objective good-faith expectation and pursued litigation to harass/burden
Whether lesser sanctions would suffice	Wallace suggested existing remedies and sanctions were adequate	Appellees argued monetary sanctions failed and Wallace persisted despite suspension and prior penalties	Court held lesser sanctions inadequate and imposed statewide pre-filing requirement

Stokes v. First Am. Title Co. of Mont., 389 Mont. 245, 406 P.3d 439 (Mont. 2017) (recognizing limits on access to courts to protect parties and judicial resources)
McCann v. McCann, 392 Mont. 385, 425 P.3d 682 (Mont. 2018) (upholding sanctions and availability of pre-filing orders under M. R. App. P. 19(5))
Motta v. Granite Cty. Comm’rs, 370 Mont. 469, 304 P.3d 720 (Mont. 2013) (factors for evaluating vexatious litigation conduct)
Boushie v. Windsor, 375 Mont. 301, 328 P.3d 631 (Mont. 2014) (district court pre-filing orders need detailed findings addressing the factors)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (courts’ discretion to maintain orderly proceedings and address disruptive litigants)
Serrania v. LPH, Inc., 379 Mont. 17, 347 P.3d 1237 (Mont. 2015) (example of Wallace’s prior misconduct, sanctions, and related litigation)
Peterson v. Great Falls Sch. Dist. No. 1 & A, 237 Mont. 376, 773 P.2d 316 (Mont. 1989) (recognizing permissible limitations on access to courts to protect others)
State v. Hartsoe, 361 Mont. 305, 258 P.3d 428 (Mont. 2011) (courts’ discretion to address disruptive litigant behavior)