N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LENC E FAM ILY TR

UST, Pla i ntiff - Appe lla

nt,
v. ELM ER C . C H R ISTENSEN; LANDTEC H ENTER

PR ISES LTD, C O ; JOANNE C HR ISTENSEN; LANDTEC H C ORPOR ATION; LANDTEC H ENTER PR ISES, LLC , De fe nda n ts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35841 D.C . No. 9:12-c v-00171-DWM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na D ona ld W . M olloy , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d Oc tobe r 15, 2015 * * Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KOZINSKI, W . FLETC HER and FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. The Le nc e Fam ily

Trust (the Trust), through its truste e John Le nc e , a ppe a ls the d istric t c o urt’ s e ntry of sum m a ry judgm e nt a ga inst it. W e have jurisdic tion



# FIL ED
N OV 19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d re vie w a

grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt de novo while
c onstruing the e v ide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the pla intiff, se e Alc antar v
. Hobart Se rv . , 800 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th C i r. 2015). W e a ffirm in pa rt, va c ate in pa rt a nd re m a nd for c onside ration of whe the r the 2005 R e le a s e of All C la im s (2005 R e le a se ) wa s unc o nsc iona ble
. 1. The Trust’ s a c tua l a

nd c onstruc tive fra

ud c l a im s a

nd its c ivil c onspira c y
c la im are ba rre d by the a

pplic a b le sta tute s of limita

tions. Se e M ont. C ode Ann. § 27-2-203; M ont. C ode Ann. § 27-2-204. The c a use s of a c t ion a c c rue d at the late st whe n John Le nc e issue d the Notic e of R e sc ission on Se pte m be r 9, 2005, a

nd thre ate ne d a

la wsuit for fra

ud. No tolling a

p plie d. 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t de fe nda nts Joa nne C hriste nse n, Landte c h C orporation a

nd La ndte c h Ente rprise s, LLC , we re e ntitle d to sum m ary judgm e nt on the Trust’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im
. The y we re not pa rtie s to the Ac knowle dgm e n t

and Assignme nt tha

t the Trust a lle ge s the de fe n da nts bre a c he d,
and thus ha d no obliga

tions under the c o ntra c t . Se e J ohnston v . C

e nte nnial Log Home s & Furnishings, Inc

. , 305 P.3d 781, 791 (M ont. 2013). 3. W e va c ate the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt, howe ve r, with re spe c t to the bre a c h of c ontra c t c l a im a ga inst Elm e r C hriste nse n and La ndte c h Ente rprise s Ltd., C o. M onta

na la w pe rm its a

c ourt to ra ise unc onsc iona bility whe re it “ a

p pe ars” a 2c ontra c t “ m ay be unc onsc i ona

ble .” M ont. C ode Ann. § 30-2-302. The re c ord be fore the distric t c o urt, c onstrue d in the light m ost fa vora ble to the Trust, sugge sts the t ota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s surrounding the

2005 R e le a se m ay

support a finding of unc o n sc iona

bility
. Se e K

e lly v . W i dne r , 771 P.2d 142, 144-46 (M ont. 1989). The Trust’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c l a im is tim e ly , se e M ont. C o de Ann. § 27- 2-202(1), a

nd be c a use the pa rtie s ha ve not a ddre sse d unc onsc iona bility in the ir brie fing, we re m an d

to a fford the m

the opportunity

to pre se nt the issue to the distric t c o urt in the first insta nc e , se e M ont. C ode Ann. § 30-2-302(2). W e e xpre ss no opinion on how the

issue should bede c ide d. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D IN PART , VACAT E D IN PART and RE M ANDE D.

3