Sweeney v. Wylie
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
June 2 2015 DA 14-0581 Case Number: DA 14-0581 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MT 154N DANIEL R. SWEENEY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. HEATHER ERIN WYLIE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District, In and For the County of Silver Bow, Cause No. DV-10-121 Honorable Kurt Krueger, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Heather Erin Wylie (Self-Represented), Billings, Montana For Appellee: Frank Joseph, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 22, 2015 Decided: June 2, 2015 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by unpublished opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, 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 Heather Wylie appeals the District Court’s Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice, dated June 4, 2014. We affirm. ¶3 Sweeney brought this action in 2010 to establish the amount of restitution that Wylie owed him as a result of her thefts from his law office while she worked as his secretary. On April 24, 2014, Wylie filed a motion to dismiss Sweeney’s action for lack of prosecution. In May 2014 District Court Judge Brad Newman entered an order in the criminal case against Wylie specifying the amount of restitution owed to Sweeney. Sweeney then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. On June 4, 2014, the District Court entered an order dismissing the case. Wylie requested reconsideration of the dismissal, which the District Court denied on August 18, 2014, noting that Wylie herself had previously moved that the action be dismissed. On September 14, 2014, Wylie filed her notice of appeal. ¶4 Rule 41(a)(2), M. R. Civ. P. provides that the district court, upon motion of the plaintiff, may dismiss an action “on terms that the court considers proper.” Cantrell v. Henderson, 221 Mont. 201, 204, 718 P.2d 318, 319-320 (1986). Wylie’s arguments 2 opposing dismissal of the action against her are difficult to understand, but appear to arise from her desire to re-litigate issues from the concluded criminal prosecution against her. The District Court had the discretionary authority under M. R. Civ. P. 41 to dismiss Sweeney’s complaint. ¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for unpublished opinions. In the opinion of the Court, this case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review. The District Court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion. ¶6 Affirmed. /S/ MIKE McGRATH We Concur: /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT /S/ JIM RICE /S/ PATRICIA COTTER 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
