Title: Hall v. Walker  et al.

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

FILED

osna2016
DA 15-0693 sans
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 147N

SHARON HALL,

 

‘and Appellant,

CLAIR WALKER, ROBIN NATION, YELLOWSTONE GROUP
REALTORS, KEN BRANNON, REAL ESTATE BY HAMWEY,
DAVID PLOURDE and DOES ONE THROUGH FIVE,

Defendants and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court ofthe Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No, DV-09-964
Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant
Sharon Hall, self-represented; Shepherd, Montana
For Appellees:

Ronald Earl Youde, Youde Law Firm, P.C.; Billings, Montana
(for Clair Walker)

 

Robert E. LaFountain, Attomey at Law; Billings, Montana
(for Yellowstone Group Realtors)

‘Thomas Mablen, Halverson, Mahlen & Wright, P.C.; Billings, Montana
(for David Plourde)

Bruce Fain, Crowley Fleck PLLP; Billings, Montana
(for Ken Brannon and Real Estate by Hamway)

Kelly J. Vames, Henderickson Law Firm, P.C.; Billings, Montana
Submitted on BriefS: June 1, 2016
Decided: June 14, 2016

Qe
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

{1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case ttle, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports

{2 Sharon Hall, pro se, Plaintiff herein, appeals from the District Court’s granting of
summary judgment to Defendants Ken Brannon and David Plourde in separate orders
entered in May 2011, and the court's dismissal of the action as to the remaining
Defendants in November 2015 for Hall’s failure to prosecute those claims.

{3 Hall initiated this action in 2009, raising claims related to her purchase of « home
in the area of Shepherd, Montana, in 2007. Hall alleged there were defects and
significant problems with the residence, which she asserted were undisclosed. Hall
named Robin Nation, a real estate agent for Yellowstone Group Realtors, Hall’s agent for
the transaction; Ken Brannon, a real estate agent for Real Estate by Hamwey, agent for
the sellers forthe transaction; Clair and Patty Walker, sellers of the property;' and David
Plourde, a home inspector hired by Hall to inspect the property. Hall brought claims of
negligence, negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Montana

Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the Consumer Protection Act, violation of the

" Patty Walker passed away in October 2011. Hall did not substitute her Estate as a party, and
she was dismissed from the action in November 2012.
3

 
Real Estate Licensing Act, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, and
constructive fraud against some or all of the Defendants, seeking compensatory and
punitive damages.

{4 Hall, initially represented by counsel, did very little from the beginning to
prosecute the case, conducting minimal discovery. Brannon and Plourde moved for
summary judgment and were dismissed from the action in July 2011. Hall requested
numerous extensions of litigation deadlines, often citing medical problems. In October
2012, Nation opposed a request to further extend discovery and expert disclosure
deadlines, The District Court granted the extension, but in August 2014 issued a Notice
to Hall under local rules that “the cause will be dismissed for failure to prosecute” unless
Hall demonstrated good cause why the action should continue. In response, Hall asked
that the case not be dismissed and requested a setting of a new trial date, to which the
District Court agreed. However, Hall’s counsel withdrew in November 2014 after being
suspended from the practice of law by this Court. The District Court rescheduled the trial
for November 2015, only to receive successive requests for continuances of the new date
from Hall. Noting that “Hall has not affirmatively litigated the merits of her case since
July 2011 other than to seck extensions of deadlines and continuances of trial dates,” the
District Court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute in November 2015.

{5 On appeal, Hall challenges the entry of summary judgment in favor of Brannon
and Plourde. Hall filed an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment that primarily

addressed problems she had with the property and generally attacked the Defendants, but
4
did not establish a breach of duty on the part of Brannon and Plourde, nor satisfy her
burden to “*present substantial evidence, as opposed to mere denial, speculation, or
conclusory statements” to establish that @ genuine issue of material fact exists.” New
Hope Lutheran Ministry v. Faith Lutheran Church of Great Falls, 2014 MT 69, § 19, 374

mn that she

 

Mont, 229, 328 P.3d $86 (citation omitted). Hall admitted during her dep

had no

 

wee that Brannon knew of oF failed to disclose any alleged defects in the
property, and her attempt by affidavit to contradict her deposition testimony was rejected
by the District Court. We review summary judgment orders de novo. New Hope
Lutheran, 19 (citation omitted),

{6 Hall challenges the dismissal for failure to prosecute as well. The District Court
delineated Hall's lack of diligence in pursuing the matter, including seven requests to

continue deadlines and trial dates, over the objection of the Defendants, and the prejudice

 

to the defense caused by Hall’s delay, including the death of Mrs. Walker, accelerated
deterioration to the subject property by Hall's lack of maintenance over the years of
litigation, and the continued lack of necessary effort on behalf of Hall to prepare the case
for trial—signaling still-to-come lengthy proceedings for the Defendants. The court

determined that alternative sanctions would be unavailing, and that Hall had been

 

previously warned about further delays and the possibility of dismissal. See A.M. Welles
Ine. v. Mont. Materials, Inc., 201$ MT 38, § 18, 378 Mont. 173, 342 P.3d 987. We
review a dismissal for failure to prosecute to determine whether the district court abused

its discretion. 4.M, Welles, 45 (citation omitted).
s
{7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of

‘our Internal Operating Rule:

 

Which provides for memorandum opinions. The ease
presents questions controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable
standards of review. ‘The District Cour’s interpretation and application of the law were

correct, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion,

$8 Atfiemed
Tustice
We concur
Gi tuk, 7 -
4
/

fiom