Touris v. Flathead County, DA 10–0514.

Decision Date12 July 2011
Docket NumberNo. DA 10–0514.,DA 10–0514.
Citation258 P.3d 1,361 Mont. 172,2011 MT 165
PartiesMike TOURIS and Chuck Sneed, Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.FLATHEAD COUNTY, Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee, Flathead County Planning Board, Flathead County Board of Commissioners, Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office, Flathead County Zoning Administrator Jeff Harris and Does 1–10, inclusive, Defendants and Appellees.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

For Appellants: Tammi E. Fisher, Noah H. Bodman; Fisher Law Firm, Kalispell, Montana.For Appellees: Paul J. Nicol; Office of the Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana.Chief Justice MIKE McGRATH delivered the Opinion of the Court.

[361 Mont. 173] ¶ 1 Mike Touris and Chuck Sneed (Touris) appeal from an order of the District Court, Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, granting summary judgment in favor of Flathead County, Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee, Flathead County Planning Board, Flathead County Board of Commissioners, Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office, Flathead County Zoning Administrator Jeff Harris, and Does 1–10, inclusive (“the County”). We affirm.

ISSUES

¶ 2 We restate Touris' issues on appeal:

1. Whether the District Court correctly concluded that res judicata barred Touris' claims.

2. Whether the County waived the defense of res judicata.

BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On February 14, 2008, the Flathead County Board of Commissioners denied Touris' request for a zoning change. On March 7, 2008, pursuant to § 72–2–110, MCA, Touris filed a petition for judicial review, Mike Touris and Chuck Sneed v. Flathead County Board of Commissioners, DV–08–328(A) ( Touris I ), in the District Court of Flathead County. The petition challenged the validity of the Board of Commissioners' decision, factually alleging that (1) Touris applied for a zoning change, (2) the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee denied Touris' application, (3) the subsequent staff report from the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office was inaccurate and biased, (4) members of the Planning Board were aware of the inaccuracies and bias, (5) the Flathead County Board of Commissioners adopted the staff report, (6) some members of the Board of Commissioners realized that the staff report contradicted their opinions and sought new findings of fact, (7) the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee exerted undue pressure on the Board of Commissioners by writing letters to the local newspaper and a letter directly to the Board, and (8) at the subsequent hearing, despite knowing of the inaccurate report, the Board of Commissioners voted to deny Touris' application.

¶ 4 Touris argued that these facts established the Board of Commissioners' decision was based on errant findings of fact, was contrary to the stated opinion of one commissioner, and the Board of Commissioners had been improperly misled by the Zoning Administrator. Touris further alleged:

22. On the foregoing bases, the decision of the Board of Commissioners was:

a. Made upon unlawful procedure;

b. Affected by errors of law;

c. Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; and

d. Arbitrary and capricious and characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

¶ 5 On April 2, 2008, Flathead County filed an answer and moved for summary judgment. In response, Touris argued, in part, that the Board of Commissioners' decision was a violation of equal protection, and substantive and procedural due process. A year later, on April 14, 2009, Touris moved to dismiss Touris I with prejudice. The District Court granted Touris' motion on April 21, 2009.

¶ 6 In the meantime, on March 14, 2008, seven days subsequent to the filing of Touris I, Touris filed this current action ( Touris II ). Touris II set forth a factual scenario identical to Touris I, save for minor changes in paragraph structure and language. The Touris II complaint asserted 11 counts:

I Violation of due process by the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee;

II negligence/negligence per se by the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee;

III violation of equal protection by the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee;

IIIa negligence by the Planning Board;

IV violation of equal protection by the Board of Commissioners;

V negligence by the Board of Commissioners;

VI violation of substantive due process by the Board of Commissioners;

VII negligent misrepresentation by the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office;

VIII violation of equal protection by the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office;

IX violation of procedural due process by Jeff Harris; and

X failure by Flathead County to adequately train and supervise employees and board members.

¶ 7 On April 3, 2008, the County moved to dismiss Touris II pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On January 13, 2009, the District Court entered an order dismissing some of the counts. The District Court left in place Touris' simple negligence counts (II, IIIa, V), and equal protection claims (III, VIII). Additionally, the Court declined to dismiss Touris' failure-to-train count (X), because it was premised on the surviving equal protection claims. Flathead County filed an answer on February 2, 2009.

¶ 8 On December 1, 2009, Flathead County moved to amend its answer to include a defense of res judicata. The County argued it was previously unable to assert res judicata because Touris I was pending when the original answer in Touris II was filed. On February 9, 2010, the District Court granted the County's motion. The County subsequently amended its answer in Touris II and included res judicata as an affirmative defense.

¶ 9 On February 26, 2010, the County moved for summary judgment on the remaining counts in Touris II. The County asserted that Touris II was barred by res judicata. On October 4, 2010, the District Court entered an order dismissing Touris II. Touris appeals from that dismissal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 10 We review a court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Wiser v. Mont. Bd. of Dentistry, 2011 MT 56, ¶ 6, 360 Mont. 1, 251 P.3d 675. “A district court's application of res judicata is an issue of law which we review for correctness.” Wiser, ¶ 7.

DISCUSSION

¶ 11 Whether the District Court correctly concluded that res judicata barred Touris' claims in Touris II.

¶ 12 The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars re-litigation of a claim that a party has already had the opportunity to litigate. Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2006 MT 51, ¶ 15, 331 Mont. 281, 130 P.3d 1267. Central to res judicata is the concept of finality; litigation must, at some point, come to an end. State v. Southwick, 2007 MT 257, ¶ 15, 339 Mont. 281, 169 P.3d 698; Orlando v. Prewett, 236 Mont. 478, 481, 771 P.2d 111, 113 (1989). In addition, res judicata promotes judicial efficiency, deterring plaintiffs from splitting a single cause of action into more than one lawsuit. Baltrusch, ¶ 15.

¶ 13 A matter is res judicata if four elements are met:

1. The parties or their privies are the same;

2. The subject matter of the present and past actions is the same;

3. The issues are the same and relate to the same subject matter; and

4. The capacities of the parties are the same to the subject matter and issues between them.

Wiser, ¶ 9. Additionally, res judicata only applies once a final judgment on the merits has been entered in an earlier action. Baltrusch, ¶ 15; Wiser, ¶ 9.

¶ 14 On appeal, Touris concedes that the first element, parties and privies, is met. Touris concedes the fourth element as well. Touris challenges (1) whether Touris I was a final judgment on the merits, (2) whether the subject matter of Touris I is the same as Touris II, and (3) whether the issues of Touris I, are the same as Touris II and relate to the same subject matter. We address each in turn.

a. Final Judgment on the Merits

¶ 15 Touris I was a final judgment on the merits for the purposes of res judicata because Touris dismissed that action with prejudice. Voluntary dismissal of an action with prejudice constitutes a final judgment on the merits. Beasley v. Flathead County, 2009 MT 121, ¶ 19, 350 Mont. 177, 206 P.3d 915. The fact that Touris I was resolved without substantive resolution of the merits of Touris' claims is irrelevant for the purposes of res judicata. See Xin Xu v. McLaughlin Research Inst. for Biomedical Science, 2005 MT 209, ¶¶ 32–36, 328 Mont. 232, 119 P.3d 100 (res judicata barred defamation claim because it could have been brought in prior action that had been dismissed with prejudice).

¶ 16 Moreover, Touris' assertion that res judicata applies only to actions filed subsequent to a final judgment, is meritless. The “date of rendition of the judgment is controlling for purposes of res judicata, not the dates of commencement of the action creating the bar or the action to be affected by the bar.” United States ex rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 147 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir.1998); see Vines v. Univ. of La., 398 F.3d 700, 712 (5th Cir.2005); see Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., 181 F.3d 832, 838 (7th Cir.1999); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 14 (1980) (“For the purposes of res judicata, the effective date of a final judgment is the date of its rendition, without regard to the date of commencement of the action in which it is rendered or the action in which it is to be given effect.”). Thus, when Touris I was dismissed with prejudice on April 21, it became a final judgment for res judicata purposes and applied to Touris II. To accept Touris' position would encourage the duplicative, piecemeal and potentially endless filings that res judicata seeks to prevent. Somont Oil Co. v. A & G Drilling, Inc., 2008 MT 447, ¶ 11, 348 Mont. 12, 199 P.3d 241; Olympic Coast Inv., Inc. v. Wright, 2005 MT 4, ¶ 26, 325 Mont. 307, 105 P.3d 743.

b. Subject Matter

¶ 17 The subject matter of Touris I and Touris II is identical. This element of res judicata is concerned with whether the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 21 August 2012
    ...court's application of claim preclusion or issue preclusion, which is an issue of law that we review for correctness. Touris v. Flathead County, 2011 MT 165, ¶ 10, 361 Mont. 172, 258 P.3d 1;Estate of Eide v. Tabbert, 272 Mont. 180, 183, 900 P.2d 292, 294–95 (1995). We also review de novo wh......
  • Reisbeck v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 30 June 2020
    ...we review de novo for correctness. Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins. Co. , 2012 MT 184, ¶ 13, 366 Mont. 78, 285 P.3d 494 (citing Touris v. Flathead Cty. , 2011 MT 165, ¶ 10, 361 Mont. 172, 258 P.3d 1 ; Estate of Eide v. Tabbert , 272 Mont. 180, 183, 900 P.2d 292, 294-95 (1995) ). ¶11 The interpreta......
  • In re Prop. Seized from Pardee
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • 25 February 2015
    ...plate frame infractions.2 To be fair, we note some jurisdictions also use these phrases interchangeably. See, e.g., Touris v. Flathead Cnty., 258 P.3d 1, 4 (Mont.2011) (“The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars [relitigation] of a claim that a party has already had the opport......
  • Ayala v. Stafford
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 27 July 2021
    ...on the merits for purposes of res judicata, regardless of whether there was "substantive resolution of the merits" of claims. Touris v. Flathead Cnty. , 2011 MT 165, ¶ 15, 361 Mont. 172, 258 P.3d 1 ; Xin Xu v. McLaughlin Research Inst. for Biomedical Sci., Inc. , 2005 MT 209, ¶ 36, 328 Mont......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT