No. 05-590
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 141N
FIRST SECURITY BANK OF BOZEMAN,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SARAH E. HUFFINE and ELDON HUFFINE,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV 99B433
Honorable Mike Salvagni, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Eldon Huffine, pro se, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
Calvin L. Braaksma; Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Braaksma &
Reida, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 1, 2006
Decided: June 27, 2006
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court 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 Eldon Huffine (Eldon), appearing pro se, appeals from the order entered by the
Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denying his motion for an explanation.
In its order, the District Court reasoned the motion was not proper because the court is not
required to give “explanations.” The court also ordered that Eldon shall not file documents
or otherwise practice law on behalf of his mother Sarah Huffine unless he first shows he is a
licensed attorney, reasoning that his purported power of attorney did not authorize him to
practice law.
¶3 On appeal, Eldon contends his constitutional and statutory rights were violated when
certain documents were not filed due to his failure to pay filing fees. He also argues that an
officer of the court is obligated to explain why he has acted in violation of his oath of office.
In addition, Eldon has filed an untimely notice of constitutional challenge to § 25-1-201,
MCA—which concerns district court filing fees—and contends the Montana Constitution
does not require that his challenge be timely. Eldon also asserts District Judge Thomas
Olson, who entered judgment in this case in 2000, was permanently disqualified from
presiding over any case involving Eldon—based on documents Eldon apparently executed in
2
1993 and 1994 attempting to disqualify Judge Olson and six other district judges. He also
posits that this Court violated the Montana Constitution and elevated form over substance by
dismissing his prior appeal for failure to comply with the Montana Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
¶4 Finally, Eldon contends his statutory power of attorney for Sarah entitles him to
represent her in legal proceedings. The only document of record appearing to be a power of
attorney—which is attached to the complaint—does not “substantially compl[y]” with § 72-
31-201(1), MCA, as required for a statutory power of attorney. See § 72-31-201(2), MCA.
Therefore, Eldon’s reliance on authority concerning statutory powers of attorney is misplaced
and we dismiss this appeal as it pertains to Sarah.
¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that this appeal is without
merit because most contentions raised are well outside the scope of the order from which the
appeal is taken and all the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law that has
not been incorrectly interpreted.
¶6 Affirmed.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that remittitur shall issue forthwith.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
+
We concur:
3
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ JIM RICE
4