Court Opinion

ID: 9942445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 01:07:46.74597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:05.651405
License: Public Domain

11] ORIGINAL                                            02/20/2024

                                                                                         Case Number: DA 23-0469

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

                                        DA 23-0469
                                                                                     FLED
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:                                                               FEB 2 0 2024
                                                                                   Bowen Greenwood
                                                                                 Clerk of Supreme Court
LISA MARIE STRECKER,                                                                State of Montana

             Petitioner and Appellee,
                                                                     ORDER
      and

BRADLEY JOHN STRECKER,

             Respondent and Appellant.

       Appellant Bradley John Strecker seeks relief from the Thirteenth Judicial District
Court's December 1, 2023 order denying his motion for a stay ofjudgment pending appeal
unless he first posted a supersedeas bond. The order provided that if Bradley posted a bond,
he could renew his motion for stay. "If Respondent elects not to post a bond within ten (10)
business days of the date of this Order, a stay will not be granted."
       Bradley filed his motion with this Court on February 5, 2024. He represents that he
attempted to obtain a bond, but that neither of the two Billings bonding companies he
contacted would issue a bond. Given the nature of this farm and ranch divorce case, he says,
"no idea of the extent of the bond amount could be estimated." As the District Court did not
state an amount for a required bond, Bradley claims that he was unable to comply.
       Appellee Lisa Marie Strecker opposes the motion, pointing out that Bradley's request
is untimely and lacks a required affidavit. She asserts further that the motion lacks merit and
requests that it be denied.
       M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a) provides in relevant part that "a motion for relief from [a]
district court order [granting or denying a stay pending appeal] may be filed in the supreme
court within 11 days of the date of entry of the district court order." The motion must,
among other things, "[d]emonstrate good cause for the relief requested, supported by
affidavit." Subsection (4) of the same rule provides: "Except in extraordinary circumstances
supported by affidavit, motions under this rule which have not been filed in accordance with
sections (1) and (2)(a) of this rule . . . will be denied summarily."
       Bradley filed his motion for stay two months after the District Court's order. Though
the motion makes various representations about his attempt to secure a bond, he provided no
affidavit. The motion accordingly fails to meet the requirements of M. R. App. P. 22(2).
       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for relief from the District Court's
post-judgment order denying a stay pending this appeal is DENIED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
                      ‘1"--
       Dated this eCi day of February, 2024.

                                                       ,,Siott,SaChief Justice

                                                           -Pec
                                                        s,„„ic(il„,
                                                                         oe_g_
                                                                    Justices