Weimar v. Barrett , 2009 MT 66N ( 2009 )

DA 08-0353
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 66N
WILLIAM C. WEIMAR,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
JOHN BARRETT, individually; and
DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DV-05-156
Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Wilmer E. Windham, Attorney at Law, Polson, Montana
For Appellee:
Phil McCreedy and Terance P. Perry, Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind,
Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 11, 2009
Decided: March 3, 2009
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris 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 Appellant William C. Weimar (Weimar) appeals the District Court’s order dismissing
his claim against Appellee John Barrett (Barrett) based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction
over Barrett. We affirm.
¶3 Weimar lives in Lake County, Montana. He filed an action in Montana in the
Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, in which he alleged fraudulent inducement in
signing a contract with a Florida-based company for the chartering of a yacht. The District
Court granted Barrett’s motion to dismiss based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction over
Barrett.
¶4 Weimar argues on appeal that his claim arises in tort, rather than contract. He
contends that his complaint alleges the tort of fraudulent inducement by Barrett to enter the
contract in the first instance. Weimar suggests that this inducement took place in Montana
via the internet and thus the Montana court properly could exercise jurisdiction over Barrett.
¶5 We review a district court’s legal conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction to determine if it
is correct. Nasca v. Hull, 2004 MT 306, ¶ 11, 323 Mont. 484, 100 P.3d 997. We have
determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal
2
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, that provide for memorandum opinions. It is manifest
on the face of the briefs and record before us that the District Court correctly applied well
settled Montana law to the facts of this case.
¶6 We affirm.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
3