Court Opinion

ID: 9907246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 00:05:03.593197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:00.825843
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                           12/05/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                           Case Number: DA 23-0394

                                         DA 23-0394

 DAN H. WOODARDS, JR.,

              Plaintiff and Appellant,

       v.

 GARY WOODARDS, CAROL WOOD,                                         ORDER
 TERRI LASELL, BARBARA WOODARDS,
 ESTATE OF DAN HOOVER WOODARDS,
 SR., and ESTATE OF DORIS WOODARDS.                                  FILED
              Defendants and Appellees.
                                                                     DEC - 5 2023
                                                                   Bowen Greenw000
                                                                 Clerk of Suprerro Court
                                                                    State of monta ne

       Appellees Gary Woodards et al. ("Gary") move to dismiss this appeal, filed by
Appellant Dan H. Woodards, Jr. ("Dan"), on July 19, 2023. Dan opposes Gary's motion
to dismiss.
       Dan seeks to appeal from rulings made in three orders of the Second Judicial District
Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, in its Cause No. DV-20-385: July 14, 2023 Order for
Partition for Sale of Heirs Property; April 24, 2023 Order for Determination of Value and
Partition by Sale; and October 4, 2022 Order on Cross Motions for Partial Summary
Judgment. Gary argues this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the appeal
is untimely as to the October 4, 2022, and April 24, 2023 orders, Dan withdrew his
objection to the issues resolved in the April 24, 2023 order, and Dan did not obtain
certification for appeal from an interlocutory order pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Dan
responds that the July 14, 2023 order is immediately appealable under either M. R. App.
P. 6(3)(i) or 6(4)(d) because it is a partition order in a case under the Heirs Act and thus
Rule 54(b) certification is unnecessary. He further argues that M. R. App. P. 6(1) allows
this Court to review the earlier orders because they are "previous orders and rulings
excepted or objected to which led to and resulted in the judgment." He asserts that his
withdrawal of objection prior to the April 23, 2023 order was specific in scope in that he
determined not to object to the property valuation but he did not consent to a sale by
partition.
       Having examined the July 14, 2023 Order for Partition for Sale of Heirs Property,
we agree with Dan that this order is immediately appealable either under M. R. App. P.
6(3)(i) or 6(4)(d) as it directs partition and sale of the property in question. As such, Rule
54(b) certification is not required for appeal. The arguments Gary raises concerning the
earlier orders are not grounds for dismissal of the appeal; however, Gary is not precluded
from raising those defenses in his Response Brief.
       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that that the motion to dismiss this appeal is
DENIED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
       Dated this 5 - -My of December, 2023.

                                                                     01°<;*?..2—,
                                                                   Justices

                                             2