Richards v. DNRC

..,-. .--. r, r\ -"1 1 07/26/2021 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 21-0056 DA 21-0056 El‘,LL.3 JOHN RICHARDS,LINDA MILLER and JUL 2 6 2021 LARRY RICHARDS, Bowe n Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana Petitioners and Appellants, v. ORDER MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, Respondent and Appellee. Representing themselves, John Richards, along with Linda Miller and Larry Richards (Petitioners),I move this Court "For DNRC To Act in 'Good Faith.'" Through counsel, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) responds in opposition because counsel was not contacted prior to the motion's filing, pursuant to M.R. App. P. 16(1), and because the motion lacks any argurnent or grounds for relief under the same rule. The Petitioners appeal a Missoula County District Court Order dismissing, without prejudice, a petition for judicial review of the DNRC's cancellation of a lease because the specific grounds for relief were not included, pursuant to Montana's statutes. The Petitioners now seek to gain the DNRC's approval to sell a trailer and outbuildings, located on this "cancelled" lease lot. They state that the prior attempts for the DNRC to consider other buyers and to mediate have been denied. The DNRC provides that the Petitioners' motion lacks legal authority. The DNRC asserts that it has made several efforts to settle with the Petitioners on different occasions and that the DNRC cancelled the Petitioners' lease for failure to correct several lease I We have pointed out previously that the District Court noted only Petitioner Larry Richards had signed the Petition for Judicial Review, while all Petitioners signed and filed Notices of Appeal with this Court. All three Petitioners signed this instant Motion. violations, dating back to 2016. It requests denial of this motion because "the DNRC has struggled to resolve Petitioners' concerns with the cancellation of Lease No. 3062606H" and lists all the orders and decisions addressing the Petitioners' various unsupported motions. The Petitioners' motion is not properly before this Court. The pleading does not adhere to M.R. App. P. 16(1) because opposing counsel was not notified prior to its filing. More importantly, this Court cannot provide the Petitioners relief when the relief is not clearly articulated. M. R. App. P. 16(1). As an appellate court of review, we are limited to review the filed briefs along with the record, final decision, and exhibits. M.R. App.P. 12 and 8(1). This appeal does not provide an opportunity for the Petitioners to reconcile with the DNRC. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioners' Motion for the DNRC to Act in Good Faith is DENIED and DISMISSED. DATED this Wihday of July, 2021. For the Court, By Chief Justice 2