Hawkins v. State

Opinion

02/13/2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 24-0746

DA 24-0746

KRIS HAWKINS, ][7 Petitioner and Appellant, FEB 13 2025 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court v. State of Montana

ORDER STATE OF MONTANA, through its DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Respondents and Appellees.

Self-represented Appellant Kris Hawkins (Hawkins) has filed a Motion to Supplement the Record and a Motion for Extension to file the opening brief. Through counsel, the Montana Department of Revenue (the Department) has filed responses in opposition to both motions. Hawkins requests diet the record from the underlying Montana Tax Appeal Board case be part of this record on appeal. She states that she contacted opposing counsel and that counsel did not respond. Turning to her motion for extension of time, Hawkins requests an additional thirty days to file her opening brief. Hawkins provides that if this Court were to grant her motion to supplement, then she would need sixty days to file her brief Hawkins further states that she contacted opposing counsel about her motion and that counsel did not respond. The Department contends that both of Hawkins's motions are improper because the motions violate the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Department states that Hawkins seeks to appeal the Opinion and Order dismissing her Petition for Interlocutory Adjudication of a tax appeal of a Ravalli County property where the Ravalli County District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Department points out that Hawkins's Motion to Supplement the Record does not comport with M. R. App. P. 8(6) because she seeks to enlarge the record beyond the District Court's record. The Department argues that the motion does not state "with particularity" the grounds for the request, and that Hawkins did not personally contact the Department through counsel, while claiming falsely that she did. M. R. App. P. 16(1) and 2(3). The Department reiterates, in its response to Hawkins's Motion for Extension of Time, that Hawkins did not contact counsel prior to the motion's filing and that Hawkins has not provided grounds for her request of time. While this Court extends latitude to pro se litigants, the latitude cannot have the effect of prejudicing the opposing party. First Bank (NA.)-Billings v. Heidema, 219 Mont. 373, 376, 711 P.2d 1384, 1386 (1986). All litigants must adhere to procedural rules. Heidema, 219 Mont. at 376, 711 P.2d at 1386. Hawkins has not adhered to procedural rules, and she has misrepresented the Department's position on the pending motions. This Court is not inclined to extend any latitude here. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Hawkins's Motion to Supplement the Record is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hawkins's Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Kris Hawkins personally. 1"-%.7- DATED this i 1 day of February, 2025. For the Court,