Opinion
DA 23-0714
01-23-2024
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: KAREN STEINBEISSER, Petitioner and Appellee, v. CRAIG STEINBEISSER, Respondent and Appellant.
ORDER
Appellee Karen Steinbeisser, via counsel, moves this Court for relief from the December 27, 2023 Order to Stay Judgment, Stay Pending Motions, and Resume Maintenance Payments Pending Appeal of the Seventh Judicial District Court, Richland County. Karen alleges that the District Court erred in staying its judgment and waiving the supersedeas bond requirement for Appellant Craig Steinbeisser because the court erroneously concluded that Karen did not object to the waiver of the bond requirement. Craig has responded in opposition to Karen's motion.
In her motion for relief, Karen explains that Craig moved the District Court to stay its judgment during the pendency of appeal and waive the requirement of posting a supersedeas bond on December 13, 2023. Craig's counsel further advised the court that it was unclear whether Karen would object to the stay and waiver of bond and thus counsel assumed that Karen objected.
Pursuant to MUDCR 2(b), Karen had fourteen days, or until December 27, 2023, to respond to Craig's motion. On December 26, 2023, Karen moved, unopposed, for an additional seven days in which to respond. However, on the morning of December 27, 2023, prior to the expiration of the time provided under MUDCR 2(b), the District Court entered its order, ruling in part, "The Court has received no opposition or objection to this waiver [of the requirement of a supersedeas bond], so it is HEREBY WAIVED."
M. R. App. P. 22(1)(b) provides, in relevant part, that unless the requirement is waived by the opposing party, an appellant who desires a stay of execution must obtain the district court's approval of a supersedeas bond that is sufficient to cover certain expenses. However, a district court may, after notice and hearing and for good cause shown, fix a different amount or order security other than the bond. In this case, Karen did not waive the bond requirement and the District Court did not hold a hearing to fix a different amount or order other security. In response to the present motion, Craig concedes that "it may be that a hearing should have been held." However, he argues that Karen's interests nonetheless are protected by an Economic Restraining Order that remains in place.
M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a) provides that a motion for relief under this Rule must, among other factors, demonstrate good cause for the relief requested. "Good cause" is generally defined as a legally sufficient reason and referred to as the burden placed on a litigant to show why a request should be granted. Brookins v. Mote, 2012 MT 283, ¶ 29, 367 Mont. 193, 292 P.3d 347 (citations omitted). M. R. App. P. 22(3) allows this Court, in the interests of justice, to grant, modify, or deny the relief requested. Here, we agree that Karen is entitled to relief from the District Court's order because the court entered it prematurely and without the benefit of Karen's response in opposition to Craig's motion to stay and to waive the bond. However, rather than imposing the bond as Karen requests, we believe it more appropriate to remand the issue, to the District Court for it to determine whether Craig's motion should be granted or denied on its merits and after full consideration of the parties' respective briefing. After the court makes its ruling, either party may, if necessary, further move this Court for relief from that order as provided in M. R. App. P. 22(2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a) motion of Appellee Karen Steinbeisser for relief from the District Court's December 27, 2023 Order to Stay Judgment, Stay Pending Motions, and Resume Maintenance Payments Pending Appeal is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court for the limited purpose of providing Karen Steinbeisser sufficient opportunity to respond to Craig Steinbeisser's Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal, any hearing that may be appropriate, and the court ruling upon the merits of the motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Richland County District Court shall SUPPLEMENT the record on appeal to the Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court within 10 days of the District Court's ruling upon Craig Steinbeisser's Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal.
The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record, to the Richland County Clerk of Court, and to Hon. Kaydee Snipes Ruiz, presiding.