Lindeen v. Converse
This text of 2016 MT 19N (Lindeen v. Converse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
January 19 2016
DA 15-0342 Case Number: DA 15-0342
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2016 MT 19N
MONICA J. LINDEEN, STATE AUDITOR and EX-OFFICIO, MONTANA SECURITIES COMMISSIONER,
Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
RICHARD CONVERSE d/b/a DC TAX SERVICE, INC.,
Respondents and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADV 2015-117 Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
Richard Converse, self-represented; Great Falls, Montana
For Appellee:
Brett W. O’Neil, Jennifer Lee Hudson, Office of the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, Montana State Auditor; Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 9, 2015 Decided: January 19, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Richard Converse appeals from the District Court’s order enjoining him from
transacting securities business in Montana with respect to several foreign currencies.
Converse had engaged in numerous securities transactions regarding the Iraqi Dinar,
which he sold as investments with an unusually high rate of return. Instead of investors
actually taking possession of the currency, Converse informed investors they would need
to utilize Victorious Financial Bank to purchase and sell their investments. A
Commissioner of Securities and Insurance (CSI) investigation subsequently revealed that
Victorious Financial Bank was fictitious. The District Court permanently enjoined
Converse from transacting securities business in Montana, concluding Converse had
defrauded or deceived investors by telling investors they would need to utilize the
fictitious Victorious Financial Bank to cash in their dinars, when he promised unusually
high rates of return on dinar investments, and when he promised unusually high rates of
return on promissory notes.
¶3 Converse makes five arguments on appeal. First, Converse argues the
Commissioner lacked standing because the Commissioner did not post a bond or provide
2 a copy of the Commissioner’s oaths and qualifications. Section 30-10-305(1)(b), MCA,
provides that the Commissioner may “bring an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction to enjoin any acts or practices and to enforce compliance with [the Securities
Act]” and “may not be required to post a bond.” We are unaware of any authority that
requires the Commissioner to provide the District Court with a copy of the
Commissioner’s oaths and qualifications before filing an injunction, and Converse has
cited to none. The absence of a bond and the Commissioner’s oaths therefore did not
deprive the Commissioner of standing.
¶4 Converse next argues the District Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction.
District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil matters and cases at law and in
equity.” Mont. Const. art. VII, § 4(1). The District Court therefore had subject matter
jurisdiction.
¶5 Converse then argues the District Court erred in allowing witnesses to testify
against him. The nature of the error is unclear as is the specific witness to whom
Converse refers. Only two witnesses testified against Converse: Joyce Bowman and
Deputy Securities Commissioner Lynne Egan. Given Converse’s citation to Bonamarte
v. Bonamarte, 263 Mont. 170, 866 P.2d 1132 (1994), it appears Converse objects to
Bowman testifying via Vision Net. In Bonamarte, this Court held telephonic testimony
improperly deprived the respondent from a meaningful opportunity to confront and cross-
examine the witness. Bonamarte, 263 Mont. at 174, 866 P.2d at 1134. However, in City
of Missoula v. Duane, 2015 MT 232, 380 Mont. 290, 355 P.3d 729, we distinguished
3 Bonamarte, holding video technology alleviated the concerns present in Bonamarte
because video technology allowed the fact finder “to observe and hear the testimony of
the witness firsthand.” City of Missoula, ¶¶ 19-20. The District Court therefore did not
err in allowing Bowman to testify via Vision Net.
¶6 Converse’s fourth argument is that the District Court denied his right to appeal.
This is apparently related to Converse’s objection to the video testimony, wherein
Converse requested the District Court halt the hearing and issue a written denial of the
objection. The District Court explained Converse’s objection was preserved regardless of
whether the denial was oral or written. It is clear Converse’s right to appeal was not
denied by the District Court’s refusal to issue a written order, given that we accepted
review of the video testimony issue above.
¶7 Converse’s final argument is that the District Court erred when it allowed Deputy
Securities Commissioner Lynne Egan to testify. Although Converse appeared to make a
general objection to Egan’s testimony, it was clarified that Converse was actually
renewing a motion to continue the hearing and not objecting to the testimony on any
evidentiary grounds. We therefore decline to review Converse’s evidentiary argument
because it is being raised for the first time on appeal. Schuff v. A.T. Klemens & Son, 2000
MT 357, ¶ 53, 303 Mont. 274, 16 P.3d 1002.
¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for unpublished opinions. This appeal
4 presents no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new
precedent or modify existing precedent.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ BETH BAKER
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2016 MT 19N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindeen-v-converse-mont-2016.