Kluver v. PPL Mont., LLC, DA 11-0681
| Decision Date | 03 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 11-0681,DA 11-0681 |
| Parties | CHARLES KELLY KLUVER, KARSON KLUVER, and GENIE LAND COMPANY, Plaintiffs and Appellants, and DOUGLAS MCRAE, KIM MCRAE, and GREENLEAF LAND & LIVESTOCK COMPANY, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. PPL MONTANA, LLC, as a successor in interest to the Montana Power Co., PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC., NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION, THE CLARK FORK AND BLAKFOOT LLC, THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY, LLC, AVISTA CORPORATION, PACIFICORP, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
In 2007, the Kluvers and McRaes sued several power companies who owned or operated the Colstrip power facility for polluting area groundwater. The parties assembled in Billings to participate in a mediation in July, 2010. At the conclusion of the mediation, the Kluvers' and McRaes' counsel emailed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to all other counsel. The MOU referenced future documents and land transactions by which the Kluvers would convey land to the power companies, lease that land back, and receive a "perpetual first option to purchase" the land back. Several weeks later, the power companies and the McRaes sought to enforce the MOU in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court. The Kluvers objected, arguing the MOU was not an enforceable agreement. After holding an evidentiary hearing, at which the District Court heard testimony about the mediation and admitted the MOU into evidence, the court entered an order enforcing the MOU as a valid settlement agreement. On appeal, the Kluvers argued the MOU was an unsigned, unenforceable agreement. They asserted the District Court erred by re-writing the "perpetual first option to purchase," which they claimed was an "option," into a right of first refusal. They also maintained the District Court incorrectly admitted evidence regarding the mediation that was protected by the mediation confidentiality statute and the attorney-client privilege.
On appeal, the Court determined the District Court erred in admitting evidence protected by the mediation confidentiality statute. However, the Court concluded the error was harmless because the MOU, which was not confidential, was sufficient for the District Court to find that the parties entered into an enforceable agreement. Applying the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act, the Court found the MOU was a signedagreement that contained all essential terms. The Court also determined the District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyer v. Jacobsen
...the claim. Doty , ¶ 9. ¶5 We review a trial court's "interpretation and construction of a statute or rule of law" de novo. Kluver v. PPL Mont., LLC , 2012 MT 321, ¶ 19, 368 Mont. 101, 293 P.3d 817 (citation omitted).DISCUSSION ¶6 Meyer argues that the Administrator violated Montana election......
-
Meyer v. Jacobsen
...the claim. Doty, ¶ 9. ¶5 We review a trial court's "interpretation and construction of a statute or rule of law" de novo. Kluver v. PPL Mont., LLC, 2012 MT 321, ¶ 368 Mont. 101, 293 P.3d 817 (citation omitted). DISCUSSION ¶6 Meyer argues that the Administrator violated Montana election laws......
-
Hanson v. Town of Fort Peck
...mediation process but specifies no process or special proceeding for enforcement of mediated settlement agreements. See also Kluver v. PPL Montana, LLC, 2012 MT 321, ¶¶ 52-59, 368 Mont. 101, 293 P.3d 817 unenacted Uniform Mediation Act (2001)). The mediation confidentiality and nondisclosur......
-
Harrell v. Farmers Educ. Coop. Union of Am.
...72 We echoed this concern in our recent ruling that Montana law prohibits introducing evidence from confidential mediations. Kluver v. PPL Mont., LLC, 2012 MT 321, ¶ 58, 368 Mont. 101, 293 P.3d 817. We emphasized in Kluver that the law “expressly prohibits the disclosure of ‘all mediation-r......