## Tri

- FtT OrduAAAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0358
WESTVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC,

Plaintiffand Appellee,

v. DAVID LOCKHART AND DOREEN LOCKHART,

Defendants and Appellants. 

# FILEO SEP 0 6 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of tVlontana ORDER

Appellee WestviewMobile Horne Park,LLC,hasmoved to dismiss the appeal filed by Appellants David Lockhart and Doreen Lockhart on the grounds that Lockharts failed to effect timely transfer ofthe District Court record to this Court and that their appeal is moot. Lockharts have responded and oppose dismissal. Lockharts filed their Notice ofAppeal on July 1, 2022, appealing from a ruling of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, that affirmed an Order for Possession issued by the Missoula County Justice Court in Westview's favor regardingthe Lockharts' rental of a rnobile home lot Westview owns and manages. Westview cross-appealed on July 15, 2022, and filed an amended Notice on July 18, 2022, to correct a deficiency in their initial filing. Westview also filed the present motion to dismiss on that date. TheDistrictCourtrecordwasfiled in thisCourt onAugust 24,2022,and atranscript from a Justice Court hearing was filed on August 26, 2022. Westview alleges that these filings were untimely because Lockharts failed totimely pay the necessary fees to produce the transcript and file the record and this Court should thus dismiss their appeal. Lockharts deny that any delay in transmittal ofthe record was caused by any failure to pay necessary fees on their part. They assert that the transmittal was delayed by Westview's filing ofits notice ofcross-appeal and amended notice ofcross-appeal. 09/06/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0358M. R. App. P. 9(1) provides inter alia that the record on appeal, including any

required transcripts, shall betransmitted to this Courtwithin 40 days after the filing ofthe notice ofappeal but in event ofa cross-appeal, within 40 days after the filing ofthe notice ofcross-appeal. Underthis Rule, therecord and thetranscriptweretimely filed 37 and 39 days, respectively, from the date on which Westview filed its amended notice of crossappeal. ThereforeWestview's argumentthatthetransmittalwasuntimely iswithoutmerit. We find Westview's mootness argument similarly lacking in merit. Westview argues that Lockharts' appealable issues are moot because Lockharts have vacated their mobile home and surrenderedpossession ofWestview's lot. Westview asserts that there is no reliefthis Court could provide to Lockharts on appeal. In response, Lockharts assertthatthey didnot voluntarily vacatetheirmobilehome, which remains on Westview's lot, but did so only under threat offorcible eviction by law enforcement. Lockharts assert that relief is available to them if they prevail on appeal because this Court could vacate the order of possession, provide relief for unjust enrichment, and eliminate any damage to Lockharts' credit ratings or their ability to enter into future rental agreements. A matter is moot when, due to an event or happening, the issue has ceased to exist and no longer presents an actual controversy. A question is moot when the court cannot grant effective relief. Iftheparties cannot be restored to their original position, the appeal becomes moot. ShamrockMotors, Inc. v. FordMotor Co., 1999 MT 21, ¶ 19, 293 Mont. 188, 974 P.2d 1150 (citations omitted). Westview argues that the present case is analogous to Shamrock Motors. In that case, Shamrock sued Ford after Ford announced its intention to terminate Shamrock's dealership franchise. ShamrockMotors, ¶¶ 10-11. During the pendency ofthe litigation, Shamrock's franchise remained in effectuntil Shamrock sold its dealership andvoluntarily resigned as a Ford dealer. ShamrockMotors, ¶ 12. This Court determined that, because Shamrock was no longer a franchisee as it had sold its dealership, there was no effective relief available to it under the applicable statutes and its appeal was therefore moot. ShamrockMotors, ¶22. 2The present case is distinguishable. In Shamrock Motors, there was no relief

available on appeal because Shamrock's franchise had remained in effect throughout the litigation until it sold its dealership to a third party and resigned as a Ford dealer. Here, Lockharts did not sell their mobile home to a third party and "resign"their right to possess the lot. They vacated their mobile home under threat offorcible eviction from the lot upon which it stands. Unlike Sharnrock, who would obtain no benefit from a ruling granting it the right to maintain a franchise for a business which it had sold to a third party, Lockharts would have effective reliefavailable to them ifthey prevail on appeal. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to all parties ofrecord. DATED this -6

1

. #1

- -aay ofSeptember 2022.

Justices