Thomas v. Hale
| Decision Date | 13 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-371,90-371 |
| Parties | Leonard F. THOMAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Donna E. HALE, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Leonard F. Thomas, Helena, pro se.
James R. Halverson, Billings, for defendant and respondent.
The District Court, in and for the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, entered summary judgment in defendant's favor. Plaintiff appeals and we affirm.
On appeal, Thomas has enumerated ten issues for review. Many of these issues overlap, some are not briefed and still others are not dispositive of the case. Therefore, we restate the issues as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in Hale's favor on the issue of constructive fraud.
2. Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in Hale's favor on the issue of visitation interference.
On August 31, 1989, Leonard Thomas (Thomas) sued Donna L. Hale (Hale) alleging fraud and visitation interference. Thomas filed this suit as a result of Hale's February 22, 1989 expert testimony in a separate dissolution proceeding between Thomas and his ex-wife Nancy Thomas Erler in which Thomas sought to amend the dissolution decree regarding Thomas' visitation rights with R., their daughter. Hale is R.'s counselor and, in that capacity, Hale gave opinions on visitation during the dissolution proceeding. Specifically, Hale testified that R.'s school performance had declined since the time that Thomas had reinitiated visitation with R. following an eight-year absence. Thereafter, on February 27, 1989, the court amended its previous order by increasing Thomas' summer visitation rights from one week to two weeks and restricting overnight visits for a period of five months.
Following the February 27, 1989 order, Thomas filed three motions with the court alleging that Hale's testimony regarding R.'s school performance was erroneous and asked for a rehearing. Thereafter, by agreement of the parties, the venue of the Thomas v. Thomas case was changed to Lewis and Clark County. A hearing was held on Thomas' motions beginning on October 19, 1989, and continuing on October 23, 1989. At that hearing, testimony was presented by R.'s teachers on the issue of R.'s school performance which corroborated Hale's previous expert testimony which Thomas disputed. Thomas' motions and the hearings which followed culminated in the District Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order dated January 5, 1990. The District Court specifically found that Rita Bertelson, R.'s teacher for the 1988-89 school year, testified that R. was having difficulty in school and was often upset. The District Court vacated the two previous orders and awarded Thomas visitation rights with R. "one day each week for two and one-half hours after school and shall further have visitation one weekend day, two times each month, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m." The court also stated it would review the matter in 120 days to determine if visitation should be extended.
Meanwhile, on August 31, 1989, as a result of the February 27, 1989 order which prompted Thomas' motion for a rehearing, Thomas also filed the instant case in which he contended the order was "adverse" to him and was improperly founded on Hale's allegedly perjured testimony regarding R.'s school performance and that, therefore, Hale was liable for constructive fraud and visitation interference. The parties submitted briefs and argued, and on June 28, 1990 the District Court issued its final order granting summary judgment on all issues in Hale's favor. From this order Thomas appeals. We affirm. Additional facts pertaining to each issue will be discussed as necessary.
The first issue for review is whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment in Hale's favor on the issue of constructive fraud.
Summary judgment should be granted if the moving party successfully carries its burden to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. To satisfy its burden of proof, the movant must provide the court with evidence which clearly indicates what the truth is, and which excludes any real doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Vanuden v. Hendricksen (1980), 189 Mont. 164, 167, 615 P.2d 220, 222. Once the movant has discharged this burden of proof, the party opposing the matter must come forward with substantial evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. Rule 56(e), M.R.Civ.P.; Riley v. Carl (1981), 191 Mont. 128, 622 P.2d 228. Further, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts and cannot simply rely upon their pleadings, nor upon speculative, fanciful, or conclusory statements. Simmons v. Jenkins (1988), 230 Mont. 429, 432, 750 P.2d 1067, 1069. Then, applying these standards of review, this Court will not reverse a district court's summary adjudication unless such order is clearly erroneous resulting in an abuse of discretion. Walker v. Larson (1986), 223 Mont. 333, 335, 727 P.2d 1321, 1322-23.
Section 28-2-406, MCA, defines constructive fraud as:
(1) any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault or anyone claiming under him by misleading another to his prejudice or to the prejudice of anyone claiming under him; or
(2) any such act or omission as the law especially declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud.
In the lower court Thomas argued that Hale committed constructive fraud because she allegedly misrepresented to the court the facts of R.'s school performance while testifying in the capacity as R.'s social worker at a February 22, 1989 hearing. Thomas attempted to satisfy the first element of constructive fraud by arguing that this alleged misrepresentation constituted a breach of a legal duty which Hale owed Thomas. The lower court granted summary judgment on this issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Property Tax Div. of Utah State Tax Com'n
... ... Steven W. Allred, Lynn H. Pace, Salt Lake City, for Salt Lake City ... Michael M. Later, Stephen E.W. Hale, Bryan T. Allen, Salt Lake City, for Salt Lake City School District ... Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., Kelly W. Wright, John C. McCarrey, ... ...
-
Hiebert v. Cascade County
...facts and cannot simply rely upon their pleadings, nor upon speculative, fanciful, or conclusory statements." Thomas v. Hale (1990), 246 Mont. 64, 67, 802 P.2d 1255, 1257. If the non-moving party fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact, the court must then determine whether summary ......
-
Ayala v. Stafford
...fanciful, or conclusory statements[,]" must set forth particularized facts in opposition of summary judgment. Thomas v. Hale , 246 Mont. 64, 67, 802 P.2d 1255, 1257 (1990). We are not limited in our review and may affirm summary judgment on any ground found within the record on appeal. Safe......
-
Ayala v. Stafford
...speculative fanciful, or conclusory statements[,]" must set forth particularized facts in opposition of summary judgment. Thomas v. Hale, 246 Mont. 64, 67, 802 P.2d 1255, 1257 (1990). We are not limited in our review and may affirm summary judgment on any ground found within the record on a......