Opinion
DA 24-0068
08-27-2024
ASHLEY LeANN TINTINGER, Petitioner and Appellee, and SAMUEL VERNON TINTINGER, Respondent and Appellant.
ORDER
Through counsel, Appellee Ashley Tintinger (Ashley) moves this Court for dismissal of this appeal because self-represented Appellant Samuel Vernon Tintinger (Samuel) appeals a Permanent Order of Protection, issued by the Standing Master of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, without having filed any objections in the district court. Samuel did not file a written response to this motion; however, Ashley notes Samuel's objection to the motion.
This Court only recently became aware of the pending motion when the matter was sent to the Court for classification after the completion of briefing. This Court attempts to handle pending motions in a more expedited manner than this.
Turning to Ashley's motion, she argues that Samuel's appeal is improperly before this Court. Under Montana law, a party cannot appeal a decision by a standing master directly to this Court. Scrantom v. Masters, 2018 MT 109, ¶ 9, 391 Mont. 251, 417 P.3d 339 (citing Beals v. Beals, 2013 MT 120, ¶ 13, 370 Mont. 88, 300 P.3d 1158). Ashley explains that she sought a temporary order of protection against Samuel in December 2023 and that the matter was referred to a standing master, pursuant to § 3-5-124(1), MCA. She adds that upon granting the temporary order, the standing master set a hearing on December 29, 2023, where both parties appeared. Ashley points out that after the standing master issued a Permanent Order of Protection along with Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on January 4, 2024, Samuel did not file any objections to the Order, as required by §3-5-126(2), MCA, to place the matter before the District Court for review. Ashley reiterates that the specific objection requirement is statutorily required to ensure due process protections to both parties. In re Marriage of McMichael, 2006 MT 237, ¶ 15, 333 Mont. 517, 143 P.3d 439; Scrantom, ¶ 12. Ashley requests dismissal because Samuel bypassed the written objection requirement by filing an appeal directly with this Court, thereby waiving any objection.
Upon review, we conclude that Ashley's motion is dispositive of this appeal because Samuel did not comply with the statutory procedures, as listed in § 3-5-126(2), MCA.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Ashley's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
2. the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this matter as of this Order's date.
The Clerk also is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Samuel Tintinger personally.