Court Opinion

ID: 9898759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 00:08:30.86508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.707935
License: Public Domain

D ORIGINAL •                                             11/14/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                       Case Number: DA 23-0451

                                        DA 23-0451

 JOSEPH H. SCHMAUS,
                                                                     FLED
             Plaintiff and Appellant,
                                                                     NOV 1 4 2023
       v.                                                          Bowen Greenwood
                                                                 Clerk of Suprorne Court
                                                                    State of Montana
                                                                   ORDER
 SUSAN DITCHEY-HELLEMS, RANDY AND
 CHERYL VUKASIN, Husband and Wife,
 GAYLE STUBBLEFIELD, and MARK EVEN
 HOPKINS,

             Defendants and Appellees.

      Through counsel, Appellees Randy and Cheryl Vukasin, Gayle Stubblefield, and
Mark Even Hopkins (hereinafter Appellees) move this Court for dismissal of the appeal
and request attorney's fees for costs associated with this appeal. Susan Ditchey-Hellems
appears pro se and has not filed a pleading. Self-represented Appellant Joseph H. Schmaus
responds in opposition.
      Appellees explain that Schmaus has not ordered transcripts as required by the
Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Jefferson County District Court Order,
dated September 7, 2023. They provide that this is not the first time Schmaus has filed
such a complaint for Eminent Domain Right-of-Way against these same parties. The
Appellees state that the District Court dismissed Schmaus's previous action after all the
parties reached a settlement. In another revived and prolonged civil matter, Appellees
further state the District Court held a hearing in March 2023 and determined Schmaus did
not follow the proper procedure to obtain jurisdiction. The District Court issued an order
on attorney fees and costs, dismissing the matter. Appellees maintain that Schmaus's
August 25, 2023 Notice of Appeal indicates Schmaus would not order the transcripts.
Accordingly, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 8(3), the Appellees requested the District Court
direct Schmaus to order specific hearing transcripts. The District Court gave Schmaus ten
days to comply with its Order. The Appellees argue dismissal is appropriate because
Schmaus has not ordered the transcripts required on appeal. They further request remand
to the District Court for determination of the costs they incurred in addressing this appeal.
       Schmaus states that he did not order the transcripts because he "believes no
transcripts are required for this Court to rule upon the issue(s) he plans to raise under this
appeal . . . ." He contends that transcripts are optional according to this Court's Notice of
Appeal. Schmaus indicates that M. R. App. P. 8(2) and 8(3)(a) "do not require the appellant
to order transcripts." (Emphasis removed). Lastly, he offers that he did not receive a copy
of the District Court's Order requiring him to order and pay for the necessary transcripts.
Schmaus blames the United States Postal Service for the error.
       From the register of actions on file here, the District Court dismissed the underlying
matter with prejudice on April 12, 2023, and then later entertained the various parties'
motions for fees and dismissal. The court issued a July 17, 2023 Order on Attorney's Fees
and Costs and on Dismissal with Prejudice. The Appellees filed a Notice of Entry of
Judgment on July 26, 2023. As indicated, the District Court issued an Order on Motion to
Order Appellant to Order Transcripts for Appeal on September 7, 2023.
      ,Schmaus's appeal may be timely, but it is not prpperly before this Court. As an
appellant, Schmaus has the duty to provide a sufficient record. M. R. App. P. 8(2). He has
not done so, and his reasons lack merit. Upon review, his response is not well taken. We
find that, along with dismissal, the additional sanction of attorney's fees is appropriate. M.
R. App. P. 19(5). Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that:
       1. the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED and this appeal is
         DISMISSED with prejudice;
      2. Schmaus's pending request for stay is DENIED, as moot;
      3. this matter is REMANDED to the Fifth Judicial District Court, Jefferson County,

                                              2
         for determination of attorney's fees and costs on appeal for the Appellees as set
         forth above; and
      4. this matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date and the Clerk may return the
         Exhibits on file.
      The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the Honorable Luke Berger,
District Court Judge; Dorianne Wood, Clerk of District Court, Jefferson County, under
Cause No. DV-2022-26; counsel of record; Susan Ditchey-Hellems personally, and Joseph
H. Schmaus personally.
      DATED this I 9 3ay of November, 2023.

                                                             Chief Justice

                                                         I.
                                                            rZ- 14-6‘--

                                                               noi
                                                               Justices

                                           3