Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KS Ventures, LLC v. Russell

Supreme Court of Montana

January 8, 2019

KS VENTURES, LLC an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM M. RUSSELL; K.E. SMITH REVOCABLE TRUST; MYERS REVOCABLE TRUST; KIM RUSSELL; SHARON HUFF; BEN WEIDLING; THE LAMAR COMPANIES; U.S. TREASURY by and through the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; MONTANA SWEETGRASS RANCH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; DOE DEFENDANTS I THROUGH X, inclusive, Defendants, WILLIAM M. RUSSELL, Defendant and Appellant.

          Submitted on Briefs: November 28, 2018

          APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-16-389B Honorable Robert B Allison, Presiding Judge.

          For Appellant: William M. Russell, Self-Represented, Columbia Falls, Montana

          For Appellee: Martin S. King, Worden Thane P.C., Missoula, Montana

          OPINION

          MIKE MCGRATH CHIEF JUSTICE.

         ¶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 William M. Russell appeals from an Eleventh Judicial District order granting summary judgment to KS Ventures, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company (KS Ventures). We affirm.

         ¶3 The material facts are not in dispute. Karen Smith, a principal in KS Ventures, and Russell were married in 2013. Russell owned several encumbered properties in Montana (the Flathead County properties) and in Arizona, which were then in default. Smith had significant cash resources. The day before the parties were married, Smith and Russell executed a written prenuptial agreement, which included:

(5) From time to time, the parties may agree to enter into a joint business venture. Such venture shall be codified by a written agreement which shall outline the respective profits, equity increases, or value each party owns.

         ¶4 On April 25, 2013, Smith and Russell executed and signed an agreement (Loan Agreement) whereby Smith agreed to loan Russell a revolving line of credit up to $5, 000, 000. The Loan Agreement stated that failure to pay real property taxes and failure to keep other loans on the Flathead County properties current were events triggering default. Russell additionally signed a deed of trust in favor of Smith securing payment and performance of the Loan Agreement and listing the Flathead County properties. The deed of trust was recorded. The Loan Agreement contained an acceleration clause, whereby the debt secured by the deed of trust would become immediately due in the case of default. Smith assigned the Loan Agreement to KS Ventures.

         ¶5 Between 2013 and 2016, KS Ventures loaned Russell over $1, 921, 008 to pay creditors for claims arising prior to the marriage and to protect his collateral.

         ¶6 Smith filed to annul her marriage to Russell in October 2015. Subsequently, Russell defaulted on the Loan Agreement by ceasing to make payments on the loan advances and failing to pay the prior mortgage and real property taxes on the Flathead County properties. On August 17, 2016, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, issued a Decree of Annulment, which: (1) annulled the marriage of Smith and Russell, and (2) found the prenuptial agreement valid and enforceable.

         ¶7 In May 2016, KS Ventures filed a judicial collection and foreclosure action against Russell seeking repayment of the loan advances under the Loan Agreement and foreclosure on the deed of trust securing repayment.

         ¶8 On July 21, 2017, KS Ventures filed a motion for summary judgment, which Russell opposed. Russell requested oral argument on KS Ventures' motion, which the District Court granted. Russell failed to appear on the date set for oral argument. Russell then requested the District Court reschedule oral argument, which the District Court denied. On March 5, 2018, the District Court granted KS Ventures' motion for summary judgment, and later, ordered the Flathead County properties ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.