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 , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35223 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 Dona ld W . M olloy , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 9, 2017 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d W
. FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s, a nd LASNIK, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JAN 17 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R obe rt S. La snik, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nt Le nc e Fam ily

Trust a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Appe l le e s La

ndte c h Ente rprise s Ltd. C o. (“ Landte c h Ltd.” ) and Elm e r C hriste nse n’ s 2005 R e le a se of All C la im s (“ 2005 R e le a se Agre e m e nt” ) wa s
e nforc e a ble unde r M o nta

na La w. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s orde r denov o . Alte ra C orp. v . C le ar Logic

, Inc
. , 424 F.3d 1079, 1091 (9th C ir. 2005). The distric t c ourt a

p plie d the a

ppropria te sta nda rd whe n c onside ring, on
re m and, the possibleunc onsc iona bility of the 2005 R e le a se Agre e m e nt. A de te rm i nation of unc onsc iona bility re side s with theC ourt. M C A § 30-2-302(2). It is the burde n of the pa

rty se e king to void a

provision to ra

ise suffic ie nt fa c ts de m onstra

ting a c o ntra c t’ s unc o nsc iona

bility
. Fishe r e

x re l. Mc C artne y v . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o. , 305 P.3d 861, 872 (M ont. 2013). Appe lla n t fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t the 2005 R e le a se Agre e m e nt wa s unc onsc i ona ble
. Unde r M onta

na La w, unc onsc iona

bility re quire s a

two-fold a

na ly sis,
a ddre s sing: (1) whe the r the Le nc e Fam ily Trust ha d a m e aningful c hoic e whe n it
a gre e d to the 2005 R e l e a se Agre e m e nt; a nd (2) whe t

he r the c ontra c tua l te rm s we re within theLe nc e Fam ily

Trust’ s re a sona

ble e xpe c tations, or we re unre a sona bly favora ble to the dra fte r. Id . No singlefa c t or is de te rm inative of unc onsc iona bility ; howe v e r, it m ay

be e vinc e d whe re the re is “une qua l ba rga ining powe r, la c k of
2m e aningful c hoic e , oppre ssion, a nd e xploita

tion of the we ake r pa

rty ’ s vulne ra

bility or la c k of sophistic ation.” K e lly v . W i dne r , 771 P.2d 142, 145 (M ont. 1989). Appe lla nt fa ile d to show tha

t it did not ha

v e a m e aningful c hoic e . John Le nc e is the se n ior truste e of the Le nc e Fam ily Trust. Le nc e wa s inc arc e ra te d at the t im e he signe d the 2005 R e le a se Agre e m e nt. Ja m e s B artle tt, a

n attorne y for Landte c h , se rve d a s a

c onduit for Le nc e , during his c orre sponde nc e with Appe lle e s
and Ga ry Ja c k son, a

n attorne y re pre se nting La

ndte c h Ltd. Ja c k son se nt the 2005 R e le a se Agre e m e nt to B artle tt a nd Le nc e for initia l c onside ra tion. Afte r re c e iving the 2 005 R e l e a se Agre e m e nt, B artle tt a ske d Ja c kson for doc um e nts ve rify ing the
va lue of the c om

pa ny . Ja c kson inform e d B artle tt tha t sinc e Le nc e did not own a
m e m b e rship intere st in La

ndte c h Ltd., hewould not re c e ive the re que s te d inform at ion. The signe d 2005 R e le a se Agre e m e nt e xplic itly sta t e s tha t the Le nc e Fam ily Trust “ ha d a

n opportunity

to obta in a dvic e from

c o unse l” be fore signing. M ore o ve r, Appe lla

nt fa i le d to re turn the $100,000 in c onside ra t ion, de spite its Notic e of R e c e ssion. Se e M ont. C ode Ann. § 28-2-1713. Appe lla nt a lso fa i le d to show the

c ontra c tua l te rm s we re unre a s ona b ly favora ble to Appe lle e s. W

he the r the te rm s we re unre a sona b ly fav o ra ble to the dra fte r turns on whe the r the te rm s we re within Appe lla nt’ s re a s ona

ble

3e xpe c tations. A rrow he ad Sc h. Dist. N o. 75 v . K l y ap , 79 P.3d 250 54 (M ont. 2003). The te rm s of the 2 0 05 R e le a se Agre e m e nt c onta ine d no a m biguity
. K

e lly , 771 P.2d a

t 144-145. Appe lle e s re quire d tha t Appe lla nt a ffirm ative ly

a c knowle dge its la c k of m e m

be rship inte re st in La

ndte c h Ltd. a

nd tha t Le nc e unde rstood the
c ontra c t. Sophistic ation of thepa

rtie s we ighs he avily

in de te rm ining whe the r
unc onsc i ona

b ility e x i sts. Pe nnington’s, Inc . v . Brow n-Forman C orp . , 785 F. Supp. 1412, 1415-16 (D. M o nt. 1991). W he n the 2005 R e le a s e Agre e m e nt wa s e x e c ute d, Le nc e wa s the se nior truste e for the Le nc e Fam ily Trust. He wa s a lso a

n attorne y
and a c e rtifie d public a c c ounta

nt. A pa rty c la im ing e c onom ic dure ss m u st show theopposing pa rty c a use d the
e c onom ic dure s s whic h

hinde re d its fre e dom

of c hoic e . Stanle

y v . Holms , 975 P.2d 1242 ¶¶ 35-38 (M ont. 1999). Lenc e ’ s fina nc ia l distre ss wa s not c a

use d by Appe l le e s. Unite d State

s v . Le nc e , 466 F.3d 721, 723 (9th C ir. 2006). Additionally , the fina

nc ia l situa

tion of theLe nc e Fam ily

Trust a t the tim e the 2005 R e le a se Agre e m e nt wa s signe d is unknown be c a use Appe lla

nt re fuse d to produc e its fina nc ia l or orga

n iz ationa l inform ation in disc ove ry .

4Ina de qua c y of c onside ra tion doe s not by itse lf inva lida

te a c o ntra c t, but m ay be a fa c tor in de te rm ining c onsc iona bility
. K e l ly , 771 P.2d a

t 145. Le nc e an d the Le nc e Fam ily

Trust ne ve r he ld a

m e m be rship inte re st in La

n dte c h Ltd., but the Trust re c e ive d $100,000 in spite of its a d m itte d la c k

of m e m be rship inte re st.
AFFIRM E D.

5