MARTIN LAKE ASSOCIATES INC v. POTTS PLLC (2019)

¶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 Appellants, Steven T. Potts and Steven T. Potts, PLLC (Potts), represented Kohoutek Liquor at a hearing before the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) in December 2012. Martin-Lake & Associates, Inc. (MLA), performed freelance court-reporting services for the DOR proceeding. At the close of the hearing, Potts requested an electronic copy of the hearing transcript from MLA. MLA provided Potts an electronic copy of the transcript and invoiced Potts $1,168.20 for the transcript copy. Potts refused to pay the invoice. MLA sued Potts in the Missoula County Justice Court. The Justice Court granted MLA summary judgment and denied Potts’s motion to dismiss. Potts appealed to the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, where both parties moved for summary judgment. On December 20, 2017, the District Court granted MLA’s motion for summary judgment and denied Potts’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment against Potts was entered August 2, 2018. Potts appeals asserting multiple errors by the District Court.¹

¶3 Upon our review of the record, we conclude the District Court’s legal conclusions were correct and its findings of fact well-supported by the record. Further, the District Court followed the well-known, long-standing custom of practice in Montana for an attorney obtaining and paying for a copy of a transcript from a court reporter. We affirm and order Potts to pay MLA its reasonable attorney fees and costs of appeal. M. R. App. P. 19(5).

¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.

¶5 Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Potts’s claims include: as an agent of Kohoutek Liquor he is not liable for his client’s expenses such that MLA should have sued his client instead, issues of material fact exist precluding summary judgment, improper venue, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the District Court erred by awarding costs.

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

We concur: MIKE McGRATH, C.J. JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, J. BETH BAKER, J. JIM RICE, J.