ARMSTRONG v DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. IN THE SUP2PIME COTURT 31-297 OF THE STATE O F MONTANA i991 BPACLEY M . MUWSTRONG, Petitioner and Appellant, -71s- STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent and Respondent. APPEAL PROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, The Honorable Michael H. Keedy, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Erik Rocksund, Columbia Falls, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General; Peter Funk, Assistant, Helena, Montana Ted 0, Lympus, County Attorney; Thomas J. Esch, Deputy, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on ~riefs: October 10, 1991 Decided: Filed: November 14, 1991 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Bradley H. Armstrong a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t n e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t f o r Flathead County, Montana, denying h i m a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s . W e affirm. The i s s u e b e f o r e t h e Court is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o award a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . A b r i e f r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g c a s e fromwhich t h i s a p p e a l o r i g i n a l l y stems i s n e c e s s a r y . I n Armstrong v. S t a t e ( 1 9 9 0 ) , 245 Mont. 4 2 0 , 800 P.2d 1 7 2 , ( h e r e i n a f t e r Armstrons I ) , a Columbia F a l l s P o l i c e o f f i c e r observed t h e a p p e l l a n t d r i v i n g down a n a l l e y a t approximately 2:00 a.m. The o f f i c e r s t o p p e d t h e a p p e l l a n t and a r r e s t e d h i m f o r drivingwhileundertheinfluence. The a p p e l l a n t r e f u s e d t o t a k e a b r e a t h a l y z e r t e s t and s u b s e q u e n t l y had h i s l i c e n s e t a k e n away. L a t e r , t h e D U I c h a r g e s were dropped and t h e a p p e l l a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t of h i s l i c e n s e . At a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e i n s t a t e m e n t i s s u e , t h e S t a t e conceded t h a t t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r l a c k e d p r o b a b l e cause t o s t o p t h e a p p e l l a n t , b u t m a i n t a i n e d t h e s t o p was l a w f u l due t o t h e o f f i c e r ' s p a r t i c u l a r suspicion. The D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t and on a p p e a l , t h i s Court r e v e r s e d and r e i n s t a t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s l i c e n s e . L, Armstronq 245 Mont. a t 423, 800 P.2d a t 1 7 4 . One day p r i o r t o o u r i s s u a n c e of R e m i t t i t u r i n Armstronu I t h e a p p e l i a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o r e c o v e r t h e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s he i n c u r r e d . The D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n and this appeal results An award of attorney's fees and costs is within the discretion of the trial court. State Dept. of Revenue v, Frank :1987) , 226 Mont, 283, 293, 735 P.2d 290, 297; citing Joseph Russell Realty Co. v. Kenneally (19801, 185 Hont. 496, 605 P.2d 1107. also governed by § Such an award is 25-10-711, MCA, which states: (1) In any civil action brought by or against the state . . . the opposing party, whether plaintiff or defendant, is entitied to the costs enumerated in 25-10-201 and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court if: (a) he prevails against the state ... and; (b) the court finds that the claim or defense of the state that brought or defended the action was frivolous or pursued in bad faith. . . . By prevailing in Armstronu I, the appellant satisfies the first requirement of the statute, but there must also be a showing of bad faith or frivolousness. A claim pursued frivolously or in bad faith is outside "the bounds of legitimate argument on a substantial issue on which there is a bona fide difference of opinion. " Dept. of Revenue v. New Life Fellowship (1Y85), 217 Mont. 192, 195, 703 P.2d 860, 862: citing Albertsonls Inc. v. Dept. of Business Regulation (1979), 184 Mont. 12, 18, 601 P.2d 43, 46. The record discloses that the District Court did not find that the defense of the State was frivolous or pursued in bad faith. Section 25-10-711(b), MCA, requires such finding before an award of attorney's fees can be made. The record supports the District Court not making a finding that the State's defense of the action was frivolous or pursued in bad faith. We hold that the denial of attorney's fees and costs was proper and we will not disturb the District Court's order to that effect. Af finned.

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.