Buy This Entire Record For
Harrison v. Harrison
Supreme Court of Montana
March 26, 2019
WILLIAM ("BILL") D. HARRISON and HARRIET ("SHERRIE") A. HARRISON, individually and as husband and wife, Plaintiffs,
THOMAS ("TOM") D. HARRISON and KIMBERLY ("KIM") HARRISON, husband and wife; and LINCOLN ROAD RV PARK, INC., a Montana corporation, Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs,
WILLIAM ("BILL") D. HARRISON and HARRIET ("SHERRIE") A. HARRISON, individually and as husband and wife, Counter-Defendants. And JON BOUSER, KIMBERLY BOUSER, individually and as husband and wife, ERICK BRODSHO, HEATHER BRODSHO, individually and as husband and wife, GORDON BROWN, LYNDEE BROWN, individually and as husband and wife, PAUL CHATRIAND, TAMRAH CHATRIAND, individually and as husband and wife, KENDALL CUNNINGHAM, ABIGAIL CUNNINGHAM, individually and as husband and wife, REBECCA SMITH EANES, JOSEPH FOWLER, FRANK GONZALEZ, TRACY GONZALEZ, individually and as husband and wife, HEATHER HARRINGTON, ROBERT HOLLIDAY, ZACHARY KOZAK, CHERIE LOFTON, JOSEPH MARINER, RICHARD NEWBY, KRISTEN NEWBY, individually and as husband and wife, ROBIN ROUSE, ALLEN TARYN ROUSE, individually and as husband and wife, IAN STEFFAN, JESSICA STUART, LESIDSAY ZELL, EMILIANO CUAUTEMOC ZELL, individually and as husband and wife, GV75, LLC, a limited liability company, Interveners, Plaintiffs and Appellees,
THOMAS ("TOM") D. HARRISON and, KIMBERLY ("KIM") HARRISON, husband and wife; Defendants and Appellants, and LINCOLN ROAD RV PARK, INC., a Montana corporation, Defendant and Appellee.
and Appellants Thomas ("Tom") D. and Kimberly
("Kim") Harrison move this Court to relieve them
from an Order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis
& Clark County, requiring them to each post a supersedeas
bond in the amount of $35, 000 pursuant to M. R. App. P. 22.
to a partial settlement agreement in the underlying dispute
and pertinent to the bond at issue here, after the sale of
the only major asset of Lincoln Road RV Park, Inc., Tom and
Kim received slightly over $545, 000 of the proceeds, while a
Receiver appointed •-by the District Court retained
slightly over $34, 000 to complete the corporation's
obligations. As per the District Court's order of
appointment, when the Receiver determined that the amount
retained was insufficient to complete the corporation's
obligations, the Receiver sought additional instruction from
the District Court. The Receiver noted that obtaining a valid
water use permit from the Montana Department of Natural
Resources & Conservation (DNRC) had become unexpectedly
complex, and an issue of unpaid taxes and penalties had
arisen with the Internal Revenue Service.
Order on Receiver's Application for Further Instruction
from the Court Regarding Final Action Pending Dismissal of
Receiver (Order on Receiver's Application), the District
Court ordered that Tom and Kim each pay $25, 000 to the
Receiver to be used to pay the ongoing expenses of the
corporation. That order is the subject of the present appeal
before this Court.
the District Court entered its Order on Receiver's
Application, the Receiver moved the District Court to require
Tom and Kim to each provide a supersedeas bond pursuant to M.
R. App. P. 22(1)(a)(ii) during the pendency of this appeal.
The District Court granted the motion. In its Order for
Appellants to Provide Supersedeas Bond, the court found that
neither Tom nor Kim had moved to stay the District
Court's Order on Receiver's Application pending
appeal, nor had they complied with the court's order to
return part of the proceeds of the sale. Because the court
retained the power to entertain and rule upon the
Receiver's motion to require a supersedeas bond under M.
R. App. P. 22(1)(c), the court ordered Tom and Kim to each
post a bond in the amount of $35, 000. The court explained,
"That number represents the $25, 000 judgment issued by
this Court, plus an additional $10, 000 for costs incurred
during this appeal."
Kim now move for relief from the Order for Appellants to
Provide Supersedeas Bond. In support of their motion, they
argue that the factual basis for the $25, 000 judgments
against them was incorrect because the cost of resolving the
water use permit issue is speculative and the tax issue has
since been resolved at little or no expense to the
corporation. Tom and Kim further argue that the estimate of
$10, 000 each for costs on appeal far exceeds a reasonable
estimate of such costs. They suggest that the supersedeas
bonds should be reduced to $11, 000 each.
appeal, we consider only the district court record, including
"'the original papers and exhibits filed in the
district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a
certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of
the district court. . .." M. R. App. P. (8)(1). Parties
on appeal are bound by the record and may not add additional
matters in briefs or appendices. State v.J.C, 2004
MT 75, ¶ 25, 320 Mont. 411, 87 P.3d 501 (citation
omitted). Here, Tom and Kim attempt to introduce factual
allegations that are not of record and are thus beyond the
reach of this Court, which is ...