Court Opinion

ID: 9389624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 21:07:05.872291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.791676
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAI                                  04/25/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                     Case Number: OP 23-0223

                                       OP 23-0223
                                                                   FILED
 DOREEN KING AND JAMES D. KING,                                     ApR 2 5 2023
                                                                           Greenwood
 a/k/a JIM KING,                                                   BoWenSupreme Court
                                                                 Clegic of
                                                                    State of IViontana

             Petitioners,
       v.
                                                                    ORDER
 MONTANA NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
 COURT, HONORABLE BRENDA GILBERT,
 presiding,

              Respondent.

       Doreen King and James D. King (Kings) have filed a Petition for Writ of
Supervisory Control, seeking review of the judgment and other orders, including a writ of
execution, entered in Ninth Judicial District Court in the matter ofIn Re The Estate of Elda
Marble, Jerry Marble, Personal Representative v. Doreen King and James King, d/b/a Jim
King, Pondera County Cause No. DV 18-58. Kings offer extensive argument and attach
more than 500 pages of exhibits in support of their petition. They request that this Court
vacate the judgment and writ of execution, and order that wages previously executed upon
be returned to them.
       Notably, direct appeal of this estate-related matter is now pending, wherein Kings
filed their opening brief on December 27, 2022, and Appellee Jerry Marble, personal
representative of the subject estate, filed an answer brief on February 27, 2023. In Re
Estate of Elda Marble, et. al., Cause No. DA 22-0284. Kings' reply brief, which is an
optional filing under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, was originally due on or about
March 14, 2023. Kings moved for a 60-day extension to file their reply brief, which this
Court denied, ordering that Kings would have until April 12, 2023 to file their reply brief,
and that no further extensions would be granted. However, Kings have not filed their reply
brief, and they ask for an extension of time to do so "if it becomes necessary" and request
a stay of the judgment. This Court previously denied Kings' request for an extension of
time to file a motion for stay in the appeal because the request was improperly and untimely
filed before this Court. In re the Estate of Elda Marble, No. DA 22-0284, Order (Mont.
Jan. 27, 2023).
       Kings make extensive argument about the facts of their history with the Decedent,
and their dealings with the estate's personal representative. They challenge the District
Court's entry of summary judgment, including its ruling on their claim that the statute of
limitations expired on the claims against them. However, these are the matters that are
currently being challenged in the pending appeal. As their opening brief contends, the
District Court's denial of their "motion to dismiss incorrectly applied the statute of
limitations. .. .The Court erred again by granting summary judgment based on incompetent
evidence. . ." While the Kings contend the urgency of the matter is "making the remedy
of the current appeal process moot," this Court has no ability to assess Kings' many factual
assertions outside review of the entire record and within the context of the District Court's
rulings challenged on appeal, all of which are provided in the appeal.
       Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy. Besides urgent and emergency
factors, a writ of supervisory control must meet at least two other criteria. This writ is
sometimes justified when the case involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency
factors make the normal appeal process inadequate, and when the court is proceeding under
a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, or constitutional issues of state-wide
importance are involved. M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c). We do not exercise supervisory
control where there are issues of fact because this Court is not a; fact-finding body. It is
readily apparent from a review of the Kings' Petition that virtually all of their complaints
are fact-driven and subject to dispute. The Kings should have filed their optional reply
brief by April 12, as ordered by the Court, rather than expending effort,on a supervisory
control petition that does not satisfy the Rules. Accordingly,

                                             2
       IT IS ORDERED:
      1.     The Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control is DENIED and DISMISSED;
      2.      The Request for additional time to file the reply brief is DENIED, as moot;
       and
      3.      Request for a Stay is DENIED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the Honorable Brenda
Gilbert, Ninth Judicial District Court; Laurie Eisenzimer, Clerk of District Court, Pondera
County; counsel of record; and Doreen King and James D. King personally.
       DATED thisa        day of April, 2023.

                                                             1      , ",Zr)?
                                                                 Chief Justice

                                                                            /
                                                                  Justice

                                             3