Court Opinion

ID: 9553197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:25:06.175071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:17.990692
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANDERSON:
I dissent. Granting that this court has the right of flexibility in rendering its decisions, I nonetheless think that rights incurred by reason of a former decision cannot be divested because we choose to change our mind.
Under the ruling in McDonald v. McDonald, 124 Mont. 26, 218 Pac. (2d) 929, 15 A. L. R. (2d) 1260, the former wife in the instant cause had a perfect right to assume that she could seek attorney’s fees. Likewise her counsel had a perfect right to assume that he could follow the avenue announced in that decision for the fees which he was to get. It seems safe to assume that such was the basis of contract upon which both the litigant and the lawyer proceeded.
Such being the case I do not believe that this court can divest them of the interest acquired under a former ruling. Compare: Montana Horse Products Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co., 91 Mont. 194, 7 Pac. (2d) 919; Sunburst Oil & Refining Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co., 91 Mont. 216, 7 Pac. (2d) 927.
As was said in Continental Supply Co. v. Abell, 95 Mont. 148, 24 Pac. (2d) 133, 140, “It is unnecessary that it be shown that reliance was actually placed by defendants upon the former decision. Reliance thereon will be presumed. ’ ’
If the rule is now to be changed it should apply only to those matters and causes arising after the instant decision is rendered.