IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0537 

FRANK L. HART and OPAL A. HART, 

Plaintiffs and Appellees, 

v. 

GEORGE W. HALE aka GEORGE WILLIAM 

HALE, individually and as Personal Representative 

of the Estate of Cecil Elmer Hal, Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Volney Hale, 

and Co-Trustee of the Hale Family Trust Dated 

3/13/2019; HEIRS OF JACK E. HALE, 

DECEASED; HEIRS OF STEVE M. HALE, 

DECEASED, DAVID E. HALE; WINONA M. 

HALE; and DEEANN HALE, Trustee of the Hale 

Family Trust Dated 3/13/2019; HEIRS OF JACK 

E. HALE, DECEASED, HEIRS OF STEVE M. 

HALE, DECEASED; DAVID E. HALE; 

WINONA M. HALE; AND DEEANN HALE, 

Trustee of the Hale Family Trust dated 3/13/2019; 

UNKNOWN HEIRS OF CECIL HALE; 

UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VOLNEY HALE; AND 

ALL OTHER PERSONS, UNKNOWN, 

CLAIMING OR WHO MIGHT CLAIM ANY 

RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE OR INTEREST IN OR 

LIEN OR ENCUMBRANCE UPON THE REAL 

PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT 

ADVERSE TO THE PLAINTIFF'S OWNERSHIP 

OR ANY CLOUD UPON PLAINTIFFS' TITLE 

THERETO, WHETHER SUCH CLAIM 

OR POSSIBLE CLAIM BE PRESENT OR 

CONTINGENT, 

Defendants. 

GEORGE W. HALE aka GEORGE WILLIAM 

HALE, individually and as Personal Representative 

of the Estate of Cecil Elmer Hal, Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Volney Hale, and 

Co-Trustee of the Hale Family Trust Dated 

FILED 

DEC 2 3 2021 

Bowell Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

12/23/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0537
3/13/2019; 

Counterclaimants and Appellants, 

FRANK L. HART and OPAL A. HART; 

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; and 

ALL OTHER PERSONS UNKNOWN, 

CLAIMING OR WHO MIGHT CLAIM ANY 

RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE OR INTEREST IN OR 

LIEN OR ENCUMBRANCE UPON THE REAL 

PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT 

ADVERSE TO THE PLAINITTT'S OWNERSHIP 

OR ANY CLOUD UPON PLAINTIFFS' TITLE 

THERETO, WHETHER SUCH CLAIM OR 

POSSIBLE CLAIM BE PRESENT OR 

CONTINGENT, 

Counter-Defendants. 

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the 

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellants' opening brief 

filed on December 22, 2021, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply 

with the Rules and must be resubmitted. 

M. R. App. P. 2(4) requires the caption of an appeal to "list the parties in the same 

order as the caption used in the district court, with the addition of the designations 

`appellant' and 'appellee' as appropriate." The Appellants' opening brief does not list the 

parties in the same order as the caption used in the district court. 

M. R. App. P. 11(4)(e) requires a certificate of compliance, which states the 

document's line spacing and that the document complies with word and/or page count 

limits. While the Appellants' opening brief contains a certificate of compliance, it does 

not contain the word count of the document. 

M. R. App. P. 11(6)(a) requires the front cover of the brief of an appellant be blue. 

The front cover of the Appellants' opening brief is not blue. 

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(f) requires a summary of the argument which "shall contain a 

succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief[.]" 
While the Appellants' opening brief contains a section entitled "Summary of Argument, ' 

it is over eight pages long and encornpasses all of the Appellants' arguments. 

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(g) requires a brief to contain an argument section, distinct 

from the summary of the argument, which contains the "contentions of the appellant with 

respect to the issues presented and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, 

statutes, and pages of the record relied on[.]" The Appellants' opening brief does not 

contain a separate argurnent section. 

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(i) requires that an appellant must attach an "appendix that 

includes the relevant judgment, order(s), findings of fact, conclusions of law, jury 

instruction(s), ruling(s), or decision(s) from which the appeal is taken together with any 

written memorandum or rationale of the court, and those pages of the transcript 

containing any oral ruling in support." While the Appellants have provided the District 

Court's final judgment order, their appendix does not contain the relevant summary 

judgment' order from which they appeal. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the signed original and seven copies of the referenced brief 

be returned for revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rules; 

IT. IS FURTHER ORDERED that a signed original and seven copies of the 

revised brief ordered herein be filed within ten (10) days of the date of this Order with the 

Clerk of this Court and that one copy of the revised brief be served on each counsel of 

record; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than 

those specified in this Order rnay be rnade to the brief as originally filed; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the postage costs for returning- the referenced 

copies of Appellants' brief will be billed to Appellants by the Clerk of this Court and 

shall be due and payable upon receipt; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the tiines for any subseqUent briefing contained 

in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run frorn the date of filing of the revised brief 

The Clerk of this Court is directed to mail a true copy of this Order to Appellants 

and to mail a true copy of this Order to all counsel upon whom the brief was served. 
DATED this,231 day of December, 2021. 

For the Court, 

Justice