Court Opinion

ID: 9506962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:16:15.389045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:12.237874
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE HASWELL
(dissenting):
I dissent.
In my view, the majority opinion is not a declaratory judgment, binds no one, and it furnishes no precedent in future cases. There are no pleadings as required by Montana’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. Section 93-8901 et seq.; National Surety Corp. v. Kruse, 121 Mont. 202, 192 P.2d 317. All persons who have or claim an interest which would be affected by the declaration have not been made parties as required by section 93-8911, R.C.M. 1947. The issues in this matter have not been framed in a factual setting permitting entry of a declaratory judgment. National Surety Corp. v. Kruse, supra.
Instead of a bona fide substantial controversy between identifiable parties seeking specific relief through a decree of conclusive character as required to vest this Court with jurisdiction (Chovanak v. Matthews, 120 Mont. 520, 188 P.2d 582), we simply have a request for answers to three broad, theoretical and abstract questions. In short, the majority has rendered an advisory opinion without legal authority to do so. The majority opinion is not a declaratory judgment but simply a gratuitous opinion, furnishing neither guidance nor precedent, and binding no one, not even its author. I foresee substantial mischief in the broad, sweeping language employed.
I would remand this matter to the district court for sufficient particularization to bring it within the provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act before accepting jurisdiction.