360 Reclaim v. Russell

Opinion

ORIGINAL 12/04/2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 24-0610

DA 24-0610

360 RECLAIM, LLC, a Montana limited liability company,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM M. RUSSELL, an individual, and MOUNTAIN VIEW INVESTMENTS, L.C., an Idaho limited liability company, FILED DEC 0 4 2024 Defendants and Appellees, Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana v.

WILLIAM M. RUSSELL,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. ORDER

360 RECLAIM, LLC, a Montana limited liability company,

Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM M. RUSSELL,

Counter-Defendant and Appellee,

and

U.S. TREASURY by and through the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Third-Party Defendants. Appellee Mountain View Investments, L.C. (MVI), moves for relief from the Order to Stay issued by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, in its Cause No. DV-19-305(A), pursuant to M. R. App. P. 22(1). MVI contends this Court should grant it relief from the stay because the District Court should have denied the motion to stay, which was filed by Appellant 360 Reclaim, LLC ("360"), because 360 did not post and obtain approval of a supersedeas bond, as required for a stay under M. R. App. P. 22(1)(b). MVI further alleges that it did not agree to waive the bond requirement, nor would it agree to do so. MVI further argues the Order to Stay does not contain sufficient findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rationale, to comply with M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d). It asks this Court to either vacate the Order to Stay or remand this matter to the District Court to allow that court to provide findings, conclusions, and rationale for its determination. M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d) provides that a district court must promptly issue an order upon a motion to stay under Rule 22 "and include in findings of fact and conclusions of law, or in a supporting rationale, the relevant facts and legal authority on which the district court's order is based." In this instance, we ask the District Court to supplement its Order to Stay with further findings, conclusions, and rationale—including findings, conclusions, and rationale as to whether a supersedeas bond is required here. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that that the motion for relief is GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District Court shall supplement its Order to Stay as requested above and shall promptly file its order with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties to this appeal shall have 11 days from the date of entry of the District Court order in which to request relief under M. R. App. P. 22(2). The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties. Dated this 41 day of December, 2024.

2 Chief Justice

al m1..4... Justices