Willis v. Oppegaard

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: March 21, 2024
• Docket: DA 23-0742
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORIGINAI 03/21/2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 23-0742

DA 23-0742

TOM and CAROL WILLIS,

Plaintiffs and Appellees, 'F1 L ED v. Ith2,112E4 Bowen dreenwooa clevibct r- iiii,R4G861,1 CLIFFTON OPPEGAARD, CIeratotsir sfurst,w4peourt State of Montana

ORDER Defendant,

and

WESTERN NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellees Tom and Carol Willis (Willises) move this Court for leave to file a brief in response to the Reply Brief filed by Appellant Western National Mutual Insurance Company (Western National). Western National opposes Willises' motion. In this case, Western National filed its Opening Brief on February 5, 2024. On February 26, 2024, Willises moved, unopposed, for leave to file a combined answer brief and motion to dismiss this appeal. This Court granted leave and Willises subsequently filed their combined Answer Brief and Brief in Support of Willis's Motion to Dismiss. Western National then filed its Combined Reply Brief and Brief Opposing Willis' Motion to Dismiss. Willises now seek to respond to Western National's filing, alleging that Western National's Reply Brief raises "new matters, including matters outside the record of the case and unsworn opinions of counsel" that Willises wish to address. In response, Western National disagrees with Willises' characterization of its arguments as "new matters," asserting that, in responding to the motion to dismiss, in which Willises raise a mootness argument, Western National was entitled to explain why the issue on appeal is not moot. The purpose of a reply brief is to respond to arguments raised in a response brief. WLW Realty Partners, LLC v. Cont'l Partners VIII, LLC, 2015 MT 312, ¶ 20, 381 Mont. 333, 360 P.3d 1112. M. R. App. P. 12(3) provides in part, "The reply brief must be confined to new matter raised in the brief of the appellee." We have held many times that we will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief. State v. Makarchuk, 2009 MT 82, ¶ 19, 349 Mont. 507, 204 P.3d 1213 (citation omitted). Thus, if we determine the arguments Western National offers in its Reply brief constitute issues presented for the first time, we will not consider them as they would not properly be before the Court. As such, we do not require further briefing. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellee's Motion is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to give notice of this Order to all counsel of record. Dated this 21st day of March 2024. For the Court,

Chief Justice