No. 86-05 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

KIRK JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

GREEN MEADOW COUNTRY CLUB, INC., 

a Montana non-profit corporation, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, 

The Honorable Thomas Honzel, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Picotte Law Firm; Carter Picotte, Clancy, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Skedd, Ashley, McCabe & Weingartner; J. C. Weingartner, 

Helena, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: May 9, 1986 

Decided: July 311 1986 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Appellant appeals from a summary judgment granted by the 

District Court of the First Judicial District finding that 

he had suffered no property damages and that he was not 

entitled to punitive damages because of the actions of the 

board of directors of a country club when it changed his 

golfing handicap and sent him a letter of reprimand. 

F7e affirm. 

Two issues were presented to the District Court: (1) 

Does appellant have a right to a handicap that cannot be 

arbitrarily changed; and (2) was appellant damaged or injured 

by the actions of the board of directors whose actions in 

this case included sending appellant a letter of reprimand. 

As a member of the United States Golf Association (USGA) 

the Green Meadow Country Club follows the system established 

by that organization to determine the handicap of its 

golfers. The board of directors of the country club has 

designated the club pro as the handicap committee to make the 

necessary determination of the handicap of each member. 

Handicaps are determined by previous scores as reported on 

properly attested score cards submitted to the handicap 

committee. Under the rules of the USGA handicaps may be 

established arbitrarily when the members fail to turn in 

properly attested cards to the committee. 

In 1984 appellant had a handicap of five. In the summer 

of that year the club pro determined that the handicap should 

be lower. On one occasion appellant had a score of 66. This 

score was recorded in the handicap computations and was 

combined with two scores of games not actually played, as 
allowed by the USGA. This had the effect of reducing 

appellant's handicap to zero. The District Court found that 

a golfer has no right to a specific handicap, but rather, 

must earn one in accordance with the standards and procedures 

of the USGA which are used by the Montana Golf Association 

and the Green Meadow Country Club. We agree with that 

conclusion. 

The evidence shows that appellant did not comply with 

the rules and turn in properly attested score cards. He left 

the golf pro with no figures to calculate or certify his 

handicap. He is not precluded from re-establishing his 

handicap at any time by turning in the required number of 

properly attested score cards in accordance with the rules of 

the USGA. It was his own action, or lack of action, and not 

any act of the defendant that lost appellant his once 

established handicap and only he can do the deeds necessary 

to reinstate it. 

The second issue involves the necessity of notice. 

Green Meadow Country Club by-laws provide that if a member is 

to be suspended or terminated that person is entitled to 

notice before any action can be taken by the board of 

directors. There is no provision for notice of a letter of 

reprimand. Appellant was never suspended or terminated as a 

member of the Green Meadow Country Club. He was, and still 

is, a member of the club with all the rights and privileges 

of membership. He was sent a letter of reprimand but there 

is no showing of damages as a result of that letter. 

Appellant argues that there are facts in conflict, both 

material and otherwise and that summary judgment should not 

have been granted. As he views the main issue, he has a 

property right in the club that has been damaged by the 

letter of reprimand, and, further, the board of directors has 

- 3 - 
no authority to send the letter. He believes that in doing 

so the directors acted in violation of Mont. Const. Art. 11, 

85 3, 7 and 17. In appellant's view the controversy is over 

due process, not whether he wishes to have, or is entitled to 

have, any particular golf handicap. The focus on the 

handicap is a mere sideshow according to appellant. However 

that may be, there is still no showing of damages. 

Judge Honzel found that there is no requirement of 

notice for a letter of reprimand. Section 10 of the 

respondent's by-laws require notice when the board of 

directors is considering suspension or termination of 

membership which carries with it the loss of equity and 

privileges in the facilities of the club. The letter does 

not go that far. The letter addressed to the appellant 

states: 

The matter involving your handicap, including 

correspondance has been carefully reviewed by the 

Board of Directors of Green Meadow Country Club. 

It is our conclusion that such conduct on your part 

is prejudicial to the welfare, best interest and 

reputation of GMCC, as per section 10 of the By 

Laws. 

You may consider this letter as a reprimand for 

such conduct. Your continued membership in Green 

Meadow is contingent upon your ability to follow 

all rules and refraining from abuse of others 

including those regulating play. 

In the event you choose not to conduct yourself in 

the manner set forth above, we will accept your 

resignation and will refund your membership fee in 

accordance with the By Laws. 

Your handicap has been withdrawn in accordance with 

Section 8 of the USGA Golf Handicap System, and the 

MSGA has been so advised. 

We agree with what the Florida Court said when faced 

with the same question: 

. . . courts should leave to the members of a 

private social club or to the proper board to which 

the members have lawfully delegated that power, the 

right to determine whether the action of a member 
has been such that, in the opinion of such Board, 

it would interfere with the pleasant, friendly, 

congenial social relationship between members. In 

the absence of a clear allegation and convincing 

proof, if the case reaches that stage, of fraud or 

bad faith, the action of the members or duly 

delegated board shall not be reviewed by the 

courts. 

Everglades Protective Syndicate v. Makinney (Fla. App. 1980), 

391 So. 2d 262, 265, citing State ex rel. Barfield v. 

Florida Yacht Club (Fla. App. 1958), 106 So. 2d 207, 211. 

The summary judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 

We Concur: 

n