July 27 2010
DA 10-0124
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2010 MT 165N
THOMAS MID MOSSER,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CROWLEY FLECK, PLLP,
Defendant, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV 09-951 AX
Honorable Mike Salvagni, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Thomas Mid Mosser, self-represented litigant; Bozeman, Montana
For Appellee and Cross-Appellant:
David M. Wagner; Crowley Fleck, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 20, 2010
Decided: July 27, 2010
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, the following 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 Mosser owned a hotel in Bozeman, Montana. He borrowed $850,000 and secured
the debt with a deed of trust to the hotel. He never made any payments on the loan and
the lender foreclosed. Mosser appealed an adverse decision in the foreclosure action and
this Court affirmed. Silver Hill v. Mosser, 2009 MT 405N, 354 Mont. 393 (Table).
Mosser then filed a petition in Bankruptcy Court. That action was dismissed after the
Bankruptcy Court found that Mosser was an “arrogant, self-serving individual who has
no respect for creditors’ rights,” and that his filing had been made in bad faith to further
his goal of not repaying the lender. The hotel collateral was then sold at a sheriff’s sale.
¶3 Mosser then filed the present action against the Crowley Fleck law firm, which
had represented the lender-creditor in the bankruptcy case. Mosser contended that
statements made by Crowley attorneys in Bankruptcy Court pleadings or at hearings
constituted “deceit” under § 37-61-406, MCA, and that he was entitled to collect
damages. The District Court granted Crowley’s motion for summary judgment and
Mosser appeals. We affirm.
2
¶4 The District Court reviewed the record and concluded that the allegedly deceitful
statements were “argumentative characterizations of the record” by the Crowley
attorneys. The District Court further found that there were sufficient undisputed facts in
the record to support the arguments and to preclude a finding that they were deceitful
under § 37-61-406, MCA.
¶5 Mosser also makes extended arguments on appeal that it is unconstitutional to
dispose of litigation through summary judgment. The District Court concluded that
summary judgment did not impermissibly restrict Mosser’s constitutional rights.
¶6 The District Court’s order is based upon the appropriate legal standards and upon
sufficient evidence. We find no reason in fact or law to disturb the District Court’s order.
¶7 Crowley cross-appeals contending that the District Court erred in denying its
motion to dismiss Mosser’s complaint based upon principles of claim preclusion.
Because we uphold summary judgment in Crowley’s favor we do not reach this issue.
¶8 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3