Court Opinion

ID: 9950304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:07:28.261692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:30.529138
License: Public Domain

03/13/2024
                                                (ANNA

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                           Case Number: DA 23-0747

                                         DA 23-0747
                                                                           FILED
 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:                                                     MAR 13 2024
                                                                          Bowen   Greenwood
                                                                        Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                           State of Montana
 SHAWN M. STUTZMAN,

              Petitioner and Appellee,
                                                                       ORDER
       and

 KRIS STUTZMAN,

               Respondent and Appellant.

       Through counsel, Appellee Shawn M. Stutzman moves this Court for dismissal of
the appeal. Appellant Kris Stutzman has filed a response in opposition.
       Kris appeals a December 7, 2023 Order of the Twentieth Judicial District Court,
Lake County, that in part granted Shawn's emergency motion for sale of the marital home
and directed that proceeds of the sale be distributed pursuant to the parties' Marital and
Property Settlement Agreement. The court further ordered Kris to allow access to the home
for any purpose related to its sale. The court issued a writ of assistance on December 21.
Shawn contends that the December 7 Order is not appealable, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 6,
because it is not a final judgment as defined in M. R. App. P. 4(1)(a) nor has it been certified
as final, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 6(6).
       Kris opposes the motion and also renews her request for an "Emergency Stay and
Injunction," concerning the sale of the marital home. This Court denied her request for a
stay and injunction earlier this year, and Kris has not demonstrated why that ruling should
be altered. Marriage af Stutzman, No. DA 23-0747, Order, at 1 (Mont. Jan. 9, 2024).
       Shawn is correct that the December 7 order is not a final judgment in the case, as it
appears there are still motions pending before the District Court. M. R. App. P. 4(1)(a)
("A final judgment conclusively determines the rights of the parties and settles all claims
in controversy in an action or proceeding, including any necessary determination of the
amount of costs and attorney fees awarded or sanction imposed."). A party may, however,
take an appeal from an order "directing the transfer, delivery, or surrender of property[,]"
provided that the order is the court's "final decision on the referenced matter." M. R. App.
P. 6(3)(h). Although the District Court's December 7 order did not resolve "all claims in
controversy in [the] action," the order is the court's final decision on the question of
possession of the property in question. Under M. R. App. P. 6(3)(h), Kris's appeal is
properly before the Court, as it is the District Court's final order divesting her right to
remain in possession.
       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is denied.
       The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Kris
Stutzman personally. Ly,sr\
      DATED this 11, —day of March, 2024.

                                                            7
                                                                      H cri42t,

                                                       al 4-114,  Justices

                                             2