STATE v DIST COURT OF NINTH JUDIC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-12 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE O F MONTANA, ex r e l . , S. HARRY, CROCKETT Petitioner, D I S T R I C T COURT OF THE NINTH J U D I C I A L D I S R I C T O F THE STATE OF MONTANA, I N AND FOR THE COUNTY O F GLACIER, e t a l . , Respondents. O R I G I N A L PROCEEDING: C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For P e t i t i o n e r : John P. M o o r e a r g u e d , C u t B a n k , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : J a m e s C. N e l s o n argued, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , C u t B a n k , Montana M a r k Murphy a r g u e d , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: MAY 2 6 1961 A p r i l 20, 1AR/ 2 6 1981 1981 Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an original proceeding wherein the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition or other appropriate relief. Petitioner requests the relief from this Court in an attempt to vacate and annul certain orders of the respondent, Glacier County District Court, made and entered on November 17, 1980, in the case of State v. District Court Cause No. DC 80-24. Crockett S. Harry, After a hearing on the petition, the Court issues the following opinion. In September 1979 petitioner Crockett S. Harry was injured in an industrial accident, entitling him to workers' compensation benefits. A lump sum settlement was eventually received from the State Workers' Compensation Division by petitioner on June 10, 1980. The proceeds of the settlement, amounting to $7,000, were deposited with the First National Bank in Cut Bank, Montana. The money has remained on deposit with the bank throughout this proceeding and has never been commingled with any other funds. On November 2, 1980, petitioner was charged with deliberate homicide. arrested and He appeared with court- appointed counsel for arraignment on November 5, 1980. Upon interviewing petitioner, the District Court learned of the $7,000 certificate of deposit and, as a result, found that petitioner attorney. was not indigent and could employ his own The court advised petitioner to retain private counsel and that, if he chose to keep his court-appointed attorneys, he would be required to defray the costs of their appointment . Petitioner, on November 17, 1980, again appeared with appointed counsel and advised the District Court that he was unable to find an attorney who would take his case. District Court at this time allowed The for petitioner's continued representation by appointed counsel but with the proviso that he utilize the $7,000 certificate of deposit to reimburse Glacier County, Montana, for the fees and costs incurred in his defense. The court then issued an order directing the Cut Bank First National Bank not to cash the $7,000 certificate of deposit and ordering petitioner not to assign, hypothecate, pledge or in any manner liquidate the certificate without further order of the court. On December 15, 1980, petitioner filed a motion to quash. The grounds for the motion were: (1) the order was made without any notice or opportunity to be heard; and (2) the $7,000 workers' compensation settlement is totally protected from any attachments, garnishments, assignments or debts. The District Court denied the motion, and the petition for relief was filed with this Court. Petitioner now seeks to vacate and annul the District Court's order seeking the $7000 certificate of deposit reimburse Glacier County to be used to for the costs of his appointed counsel. The main workers' liable thrust of petitioner's compensation in funds any manner Section 39-71-743, MCA, for are the argument exempt debts of from the is that being held recipient. is pertinent in this regard and provides as follows: "Assignment or attachment of payments. No payments under this chapter [the Workers' Compensation Act] shall be assignable, subject to attachment or garnishment, or be held liable in any way for debts." This section has yet to be interpreted by this Court. W e now c o n c l u d e , absolute, however, that t h e provided allowing a blanket protection exemption is a g a i n s t claims of e v e r y k i n d , i n c l u d i n g t h e one a t i s s u e . The underlying compensation that he legislation will industrial purpose be is to compensated accidents and which, objective insure for when the of injured disabilities added workers' to worker caused his by remaining e a r n i n g a b i l i t y , w i l l e n a b l e him t o f u n c t i o n w i t h o u t b e i n g a burden t o o t h e r s . 386, S e e Mahlum v . P.2d 412 572; 1 Broeder Larson, ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 7 Mont. T h e Law o f W o r k m e n ' s C o m p e n s a t i o n , B 2.50 a t 11 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s o b j e c t i v e and t o a s s u r e i t s maximum benefit legislature workers' of has 39-71-104, the injured specifically worker, provided that the Montana payment of a c o m p e n s a t i o n award s h a l l b e exempt f r o m a l l f o r m s seizures. construed for If this exemption of t h e worker, i n favor MCA, is to now b e a s mandated liberally by section i t m u s t b e g i v e n e f f e c t a s w r i t t e n , and t h e e x e m p t i o n m u s t be deemed c o m p l e t e . Respondent a r g u e s t h a t t h e exemption does n o t extend t o governmental e n t i t i e s s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r p u b l i c monies expended t o s u p p o r t t h e i n j u r e d worker. W e acknowledge t h a t t h i s p o s i t i o n h a s b e e n u p h e l d i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s on t h e r a t i o n a l e t h a t g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t i e s s h o u l d be g r a n t e d t h e s t a t u s of an "extraordinary" creditor so as i n j u r e d w o r k e r f r o m becoming a p u b l i c c h a r g e . Coburn ( I o w a 1 9 8 0 ) , 294 N.W.2d Conn. 1 9 7 3 ) , 361 F.Supp. a r e not controlling, 1325. to keep the See S t a t e v. 5 7 ; McDougald v , N o r t o n ( D . C . The c i t e d c a s e s , and w e r e j e c t t h e i r however, application. W e h o l d t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y e x e m p t i o n i s t o t a l as t o a n y and a l l creditors, including a county governmental entity seeking to recover funds expended for a defendant's appointed counsel. A writ District of Court's prohibition order is seizing hereby the granted, and the proceeds of the petitioner's workers' compensation award is vacated. We concur: Chief Justice Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : I concur i n the r e s u l t . I n my v i e w t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i r e c t i n g t h e F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank n o t t o c a s h t h e $ 7 , 0 0 0 c e r t i f i c a t e of d e p o s i t and o r d e r i n g r e l a t o r n o t t o a s s i g n , h y p o t h e c a t e , p l e d g e o r l i q u i d a t e t h e c e r t i f i c a t e m u s t be v a c a t e d and s e t a s i d e . Relator was d e n i e d p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s by e n t r y o f t h i s o r d e r w i t h o u t n o t i c e and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p e a r and c o n t e s t t h e o r d e r . -----------Chief J u s t i c e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
