Court Opinion

ID: 9958827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 22:07:22.928253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:43.666885
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                      04/09/2024

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE StATE OF MONTANA                            Case Number: DA 22-0486

                                      DA 22-0486

GILBERT R. JOHNSTON and JUDITH A. JOHNSTON;
STEPHEN R. GIBBS; SCOTT SHONE; DONALD S.
SMITH and BRENDA J. SMITH, individually and as
Trustees of the DONALD S. SMITH AND BRENDA J.
SMITH AB LIVING TRUST; RACHELLE AMBER
McCRACKEN; MICHAEL ALLEN McCRACKEN;
SEAN JUSTIN SMITH; GERALD B. WOODAHL and '
SUSAN A. WOODAHL; JEFFREY M. HOLLENBACK;
JIM S. FERGUSON; ERIC W. SMART and
STEPHANIE NICOLE SMART; NANCY CORDIAL;
EDS INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
cornpany; NEWS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Montana
                                                                  ,    ORDER
limited liability company; and JCO PROPERTlES, LLC a
Montana limited liability cornpany,

             Plaintiffs and Appellants,

       v.

 FLYING S TITLE & ESCROW, INC. f/k/a FIRST                                    FILED
 AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY,
                                                                              APR - 9 2024
                                                                            Bowen Greenwood
              Defendants and Appellees.                                   Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                             State of Montane

       Gilbert and Judith Johnston et al. (collectively "Appellants") have filed a Petition

for Rehearing of this Court's Opinion entered February 42022. See Johnston v. Flying

S Title & Escrow, Inc., 2024 MT 39, 415 Mont. 332. Appellee Flying S Title & Escrow,

Inc. (Flying S), has responded in opposition.

       This Court "will consider a petition for rehearing prèsenteld only upon [a showing]

[t]hat it overlooked some fact material to the decision; What it oterlooked some question
presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case; or What its decigion

conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed by the supreme court." M. R.

App. P. 20(1)(a). "A petition for rehearing is not a forum in which to rehash arguments

made in the briefs and considered by the Court." State ex rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris,

Inc., 217 P.3d 475, 486, 2009 Mont. LEXIS 443 (citing M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)). Having
                                                               I
reviewed the Petition, we conclude that Appellants have n@t demonstrated the existence

any of the criteria, including an overlooked fact or a conflict with controlling authority,

which would warrant rehearing. M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)(i)-(iii).

       Appellants contend this Court rnisapprehended the fabts of the case when we stated

that "Flying S . . . provided, as it agreed, title insurance for, the transaction completed by

Appellants to purchase the lots."       Opinion, ¶ 22 (empimsis added).          According to

Appellants, no policy was ever issued for insurance on the lots,sand thus, the Court erred

in determining that Appellants had received title insurance for the lots. This reasoning is

misguided, however, as the existence of title insurance fot the lints is not dependent on

whether Flying S delivered a physical policy for the lots. Rathe'r, title insurance for the

lots existed by virtue of the parties entering a contract fir issuance of that insurance

precisely as predicated in the Lot Commitments, and closing thereon. Further, this case

did not involve a claim for title insurance of the lots, but for insurance of the parcels, which

the Opinion concluded did not exist, -and which Appellants do not challenge. Appellants'

remaining arguments are predominantly efforts to relitigate arguments already resolved the

Opinion and thus are unsuited for a rehearing. Therefore,
                                               2
                                                             1
                                                             1

       IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Re iearing is DENIED and DISMISSED.

       The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directe I to.provide a copy of this Order to counsel
                                                             1
of record.
                 ctr ,                                        I
       DATED this I 4—day of April, 2024.

                                                   all                      ,
                                                            Chief Justice
                                                      p      g.
                                                             ; ,                   e
                                                                                Ae-___,

                                                                       ifre=k

                                                                  -0

                                                                       /1/
                                                                        Justices

                                              3