Opinion
DA 22-0565
08-15-2023
TAMMY MARIE BOUDETTE, n/k/a TAMMY MARIE OSKERSON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIEL BRIAN BOUDETTE, Defendant and Appellant.
ORDER
Daniel Brian Boudette (Boudette) has filed a Petition for Rehearing of this Court's Opinion entered June 27, 2023. See Boudette v. Boudette, 2023 MT 126N, 412 Mont. 555. Tammy Marie Oskerson (Oskerson) did not respond to the Petition.
This Court "will consider a petition for rehearing presented only upon [a showing] [t]hat it overlooked some fact material to the decision; [t]hat it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case; or [t]hat its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed by the supreme court." M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a). "A petition for rehearing is not a forum in which to rehash arguments made in the briefs and considered by the Court." State ex rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 217 P.3d 475, 486, 2009 Mont. LEXIS 443 (citing M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)). Having reviewed the Petition, we conclude that Boudette has not demonstrated the existence any of the criteria, including an overlooked fact or a conflict with controlling authority, which would warrant rehearing. M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)(i)-(iii).
Boudette contends this Court's application of claim preclusion overlooked material facts and conflicts with bankruptcy law. While 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) and § 362(a)(1) were in effect during Boudette's bankruptcy proceeding, this does not change the fact that no appeal was ever taken, during or after the bankruptcy proceeding, from either Judge McMahon's April 14, 2020, Order or the District Court's deemed denial of Boudette's motion for relief under M. R. Civ. P. 60. Further, that the District Court may not have reviewed Boudette's Rule 60 motion for relief does not mitigate the impact of M. R. Civ. P. 59(f), which deems such motions denied, regardless of reason, after the passage of sixty days. Boudette's remaining arguments are predominantly efforts to relitigate the claims which the Opinion held to be precluded. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record.