Court Opinion

ID: 9509042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:42:11.798274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:43.572088
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WEBER
specially concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion with the exception of the reasoning set forth in the following paragraphs:
Part II of the majority opinion determines that the decision of the District Court to award treble damages was not an abuse of discretion and is affirmed. In the course of that discussion, the majority makes the following statement:
This Court has recently held that the Montana Consumer Protection Act applies to the lending and collecting of money in relation to consumer loans. Baird v. Norwest Bank (Mont. 1992), [255 Mont. 317,] 843 P.2d 327.
Apparently the reference to Baird is the establishment of a rationale for the application of the Montana Consumer Protection Act to the present case. I do not agree that reference is appropriate as a basis for the opinion.
That was not the legal theory adopted by the District Court in this case. In substance the District Court held that the purchase of credit disability insurance by the plaintiff constituted a purchase of services under the Act, and that the breach was a violation of the Act. Following is a pertinent portion of the District Court opinion:
... The weight of authority when considered in light of the evidence presented supports the finding of fact and conclusion of law that Credit Union in fact committed an unfair and deceptive act in its sale of credit disability insurance to plaintiff and subsequent repossession of the security and continued acceptance of payments deducted from plaintiffs check and the disability carrier after repossession.
I would affirm the District Court’s conclusion that there was a breach of the Act in connection with the purchase of the credit disability insurance which constituted a purchase of services as defined under the Act.
I would limit my reference to the Montana Consumer Protection Act to the affirming of the action of the District Court. I do not believe Baird is authority pertinent to the conduct in this case.
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE concurs in the foregoing special concurrence of JUSTICE WEBER.