Conservatorship of Soule

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

December 1 2015 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case No.DA 15-0336 2 3 John D Runkle,an individual 4 Plaintiff/Appellant, 5 v. 6 Duane Allen, an individual, GeoffDecker, 7 An individual, and DOES 1 through 20 8 Defendants/Appelles, 9 10 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF 11 12 13 14 On appeal from the Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court, County of Lincoln Cause No.DV 13-261 Honorable James Wheelis Presiding 15 16 17 APPEARANCES: 18 John D Runkle,Plaintiff/Appellant 27744 Yaak River Road Troy, MT 59935 406-295-5463 Phone johnrunkle(&,aol.corn Amy Guth 408 Mineral Avenue Libby, MT 59923 406-293-2322 Phone gth@montanasky.net APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GeoffDecker Pro Se 357 Riverview Drive Troy, Montana 59935 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary of Argument In Reply 7 II. Argument III. 6 APPELLEE/DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IS MORE OF A PERSONAL ATTACK THAN A LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Appellee's personal attack on Appellant is unprofessional at best and should be stricken from the record 7 .8. B. Appellant's divorce proceeding is irrelevant and grossly exaggerated by Appellee and his counsel....9 C. Appellant has never considered himselfan expert in real estate law, nor is he an attomey as Appellant testified to D. Appellee's inference that Appellant committed some sort offraud on the court in CV 12-97 is preposterous and unprofessional 9 10 E. Appellant's previous litigation is irrelevant to the matter at hand .10 Iv. APPELLANT'S BRIEF WAS NOT LATE AND ALTHOUGH NOT COMPLETELY CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF MONT.R.APP.P. 12, APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED THE INFORMATION REQUIRED AND THE ARGUMENT 11 A. Appellant's Opening Brief was not late 11 B. Appellant has complied with Mont.R.App.P. 12 in spirit although regrettably there is a procedural error 12 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 2 1 APPELLEE'S RESPONSE IS CONTRADICTORY AS IT RELATES TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE .12 CABIN(STRUCTURE) V. 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. Appellee's argument misstates the District Court rulings,jumps to conclusions and contradicts 12 himselfin his argument B. The property line in general split the structure down the middle at the time Appellee destroyed the structure 13 8 9 10 11 12 13 C. Law enforcement warned Appellee to cease trespassing onto Appellant's property just prior .14 to Appellee's destruction ofthe structure. APPELLEE FAILS TO MENTION IN HIS ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT NEVER RECEIVED A HEARING PRIOR TO SANCTIONS BEING ISSUED UNDER RULE 11(B) 15 A. Appellee's argument that Appellant was afforded the opportunity for a hearing to determine the reasonableness ofattorney's fees fails to address the due process clause VI. 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Appellee's argument that the hearing on the reasonableness ofthe attomey's fees is not the hearing required to provide Appellant due process 16 C The issue ofthe Rule 11(b)sanctions should not be remanded for a hearing, the sanctions should be reversed in their entirety 16 B 23 24 L 25 VII. ALL ADDITIONAL STANDING ON APPELLANT'S CLAIMS FLOW FROM THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE OF THE CABIN (STRUCTURE) APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 3 .16 1 A. Ownership by Appellant either wholly or in part justifies the remand ofall ofAppellant's claims 17 to be remanded for trial 2 3 4 B. Should the Court find that Appellant had no ownership issue either wholly or in part, then Appellant's claims all fail 17 C. If Appellant's claims have merit, the issue should be remanded back to the District Court for trial 5 17 6 7 8 9 10 VIII. Conclusion 11 IX. Certificate ofService 12 X. Certificate of Compliance 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 4 17 19 .20 1 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 3 4 Stipes v. First Interstate Bank ofPolson,2005 MT 295, 329 5 Mont. 320, 125 P.3d 591............................................................15 6 Byrum v. Andren,2007 MT 107, Para. 32, 337 Mont. 167, 7 2007P.3d 1062. ......................................................................15 8 State v. Toole County(1996), 278 Mont. 253, 262-63, 9 924 P.2d 693, 698 10 11 .15 Muri v. Frank, 2003 MT 316, ¶22, 318 Mont. 269, ¶22, 80P.3d 77, ¶22 15 12 13 Statutes 14 15 Mont. R. Civ. P.Rule 11 16 Mont. R. App. P. Rule 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 5 6, 15, 16 12 1 I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT IN REPLY In his response brief, Appellee asserts claims that contradict the District Court orders and uses patently false or grossly misleading statements as a personal attack on Appellant as the basis for his Response. Appellee also claims that the filing of Appellant's brief was late and that Appellant's opening briefdoes not conform to Mont.R.App.P. 12. Appellee's Response is flawed in that it states both that Appellee(Allen) owned a portion ofthe cabin and later states in the Response that Appellee(Allen) owned the entire cabin. The District Court only ruled that Appellee owned a portion ofthe cabin and didn't even clarify that point. The District Court's ruling was that Appellant did not own the portion ofthe cabin Iie on Appellee's property. Additionally,the Response fails to mention that Appellee destroyed the entire cabin, even the portion that the District Court implied was owned by Appellant. Appellee argues that Appellee had the right to remove the entire structure but fails to explain how the removal ofthe entire structure transcended to Appellant's ownership or partial ownership. Rather than explain this dilemma, Appellant misstates the District Court's ruling by stating that Appellee owned the entire structure and that Appellant's portion ofthe structure was left intact. This would mean that Appellee removed only halfthe structure which obviously did not occur as this was a constructed building and is nonsensical as the structure was a fixed cabin on a foundation. Appellee argues that Appellant introduces for the first time the issue ofjoint ownership in regards to waste and requests that the Supreme Court should not review this for the first time on appeal. One ofthe basis for Appellant's appeal is APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 6 1 not newly introduced evidence,the question ofjoint ownership was introduced and 2 ruled on by the District Court in its ruling. Appellant did not request a ruling for 3 partial ownership,the District Court implied and ruled that the structure was only 4 halfowned by Appellee and halfowned by Appellant. Therefore, Appellant has 5 not introduced new argument, Appellant is basing his appeal in part on the District 6 Court's own ruling of partial ownership. 7 In regards to the issue of Trespass, Appellee's Response argues that Appelle 8 was under a duty to remove the structure as it was owned by Appellee, again 9 ignoring the fact that the structure was in dispute and that the District Court ruled 10 11 that Appellee owned only a portion ofthe structure. Appellee argues that no intentional infliction of emotional distress occurred 12 by responding that the stress must occur from a wrongful act. Appellee responds 13 that this did not occur although based upon numerous trespasses and requests to 14 cease the trespass, Appellee certainly committed a number of"wrongful" acts. 15 In regards to Appellee's argument on Rule 1 1(b)sanctions, Appellee fails to 16 point out(as Appellant did)that no hearing was scheduled before the issue of 17 sanctions was ruled on as is required. Appellee is correct in that Appellant did not 18 appear at the hearing to determine the reasonable amount ofthe sanctions as the 19 District Court was required to hold a hearing before granting sanctions and this 20 was clearly not done. 21 22 ARGUMENT 23 24 25 III. APPELLEE/DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IS MORE OF A PERSONAL ATTACK THAN A LEGAL ARGUMENT APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 7 1 2 A. Appellee's personal attack on Appellant is unprofessional at best and should be stricken from the record. 3 4 Appellee's Counsel apparently decided that personally attacking Appellant 5 was the way to get her point across to this court. Appellee's response is replete 6 with numerous attacks that Appellant feels compelled to point out to the court and 7 would like to illustrate these specious,patently false, grossly misleading statements 8 in this attack by pointing outjust how many irrelevant and unnecessary statements 9 Appellee's counsel makes in her response: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. "Runkle is the selfproclaimed expert in real estate matters and real estate law." (Appellee's Response Page, 4, Para. 4) 2. "Runkle has an extensive history in being sued and initiating lawsuits as a pro se litigant" (Appellee's Response,Page 4,para. 5) 3. "Runkle, a selfproclaimed amateur lawyer......" (Appellee's Response, Page 7, Para 3, line 1) 4. "Runklejudicially confessed in pending divorce proceedings that he had no interest in any realproperty in Montana." 18 5. "in pro se litigation, Runkle attempted to abuse the legal systemfor 19 selfgain. For example, in prior pro se divorce proceedings, Runkle 20 denied ownership ofany realproperty(DV 13-26)."... 21 Runkle owned no realproperty, the court could award no real 22 property to his wife."(Appellee's Response,Page 21,Para 1) 23 24 ..."If 6. In another pro se proceeding, Runkle sued to collect damages. from a defaulting party. Runklefailed to mention anywhere in his pleadings 25 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 8 1 that he had been compensated by an insurance company.(CV 12- 2 97)."(Appellee's Response,Page 21,Para 1) 3 Appellant feels compelled to defend himselffrom the personal attacks to 4 avoid being smeared in front ofthis court. If what Appellee's counsel says is true, 5 Appellant should be facing charges for perjury or fraud. However,the things that 6 Appellee's counsel has implied or expressly claimed are false and unprofessional 7 allegations as this attempted smear of Appellant requires a short defense in reply. 8 9 10 B. Appellant's divorce proceeding is irrelevant and grossly exaggerated by Appellee and his counsel. 11 Suffice it to say that in Appellant's divorce proceedings, both Appellant and his 12 former spouse are on good terms and both filed a document withdrawing an 13 erroneous affidavit and filed the withdrawal document with the court. The divorce 14 proceeding was withdrawn and finalized overseas where Appellant's former 15 spouse resides. There is not and never has been an issue of disputed property 16 between Appellant and his former spouse. This attack on Appellant is unnecessary 17 and irrelevant to the issue at hand. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C. Appellant has never considered himselfan expert in real estate law,nor is he an attorney as Appellant testified to It is true that Appellant has been a real estate broker for over 25 years and therefore is an expert in some areas ofreal estate. However, Appellant NEVER stated that he was an expert in real estate law and continually advised Appellee's counsel that he was not an attorney. Appellant's answer during testimony(Runkle depo)excerpts: APPELLANT S REPLY BRIEF - 9 ' 1 page 47,lines 17,18; "From a legal standpoint, that's somethingfor the 2 courts to decide, notfor an individual to decide" 3 you're page 67,lines 6,7; "I'm aware that there is some law, butf 4 asking me to quote it, Ican't. I'm not an attorney." 5 page 78,lines 8,9; "You're lookingfor a legal conclusion thatIcan't 6 give you. I'm not ajudge or an attorney." 7 8 9 D. Appellee's inference that Appellant committed some sort offraud on the court in CV 12-97 is preposterous and unprofessional. 10 In CV 12-97 Appellant testified in open court during the "prove up" phase as to 11 the receipt ofsome insurance proceeds which were not even halfofthe amount of 12 damage that was caused by the defaulting party. (The default occurred almost 2 13 years into the litigation after defendant failed to further respond.) Additionally, 14 Appellant openly testified in this matter in open court at the "prove up" as well as 15 testifying at his deposition in this matter as to the receipt ofinsurance proceeds 16 which did not come close to covering the damage by stating;"I think I received 17 about 90,000, but there was almost 200,000 in damage(Runkle depo; page 20, 18 lines 6-7,referring to CV 12-97). Therefore, as Appellee's counsel was the person 19 conducting the deposition, Appellee's counsel was aware that her statement was 20 false and misleading. Appellant never failed to inform anyone ofthe insurance 21 proceeds received. . This attack on Appellant is unnecessary and irrelevant to the 22 issue at hand. 23 24 E. Appellant's previous litigation is irrelevant to the matter at hand 25 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 10 1 It is true that Appellant has been involved in multiple litigation scenarios.(In 2 fact, Appellant was sued in this small community for non-disclosure ofa septic 3 system being inoperable. The case was dismissed as having no basis). However, 4 having operational real estate offices in seven states leaves the high probability tha 5 an owner/broker will be sued on numerous occasions for multiple issues thoughout 6 numerousjurisdictions. Appellant is not normally the initiator ofthe litigation and 7 for Appellee's counsel to twist the words ofAppellant during his deposition is 8 unprofessional at best. (Runkle Depo., p. 6,lines 15-20, Affidavit ofJohn Runkl , 9 D.C. Doc. 38)demonstrating the fact that Appellant had offices and real estate 10 11 broker's licenses in seven states. These types of personal attacks have no place in a District Court document, much 12 less a document filed with the Supreme Court and Appellant objects to the content 13 ofthe statements and asks that they be stricken from the court record. 14 15 16 17 18 IV. APPELLANT'S BRIEF WAS NOT LATE AND ALTHOUGH NOT COMPLETELY CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF MONT.R.APP.P. 12, APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED THE INFORMATION REQUIRED AND THE ARGUMENT 19 20 21 A. Appellant's opening brief was not late Appellee states that Appellant's opening brief was late but taking into 22 account that the Notice was given on September 3rd 2015 and the clock , 23 began the following day on September 4th,Appellant had until October 24 4th,2015 to file unless the date landed on a weekend(which it did)and 25 therefore would have until the next business day which was October 5th, 2015. (The Brief was filed on October 5th,2015). Even ifthe clock APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 11 1 1, began on September 3" 2015 the 30th day would still land on a weekend 2 and therefore, Appellant would have until the following business day 3 which would be October 5th,2015. 4 5 6 B. Appellant has complied with Mont.R.App.P. 12 in spirit although regrettably there is a procedural error 7 In regards to Appellant not complying to Mont.R.App.P. 12, Appellant 8 although not completely in compliance has provided the information necessary to 9 review the case. Ifthe Supreme Court decides the filing does not comply with 10 Mont.R.App.P. 12, Appellant requests the court return the file to be properly 11 briefed or give leave to Appellant to refile without prejudice with leave to amend 12 the opening brief. Appellant requests some leeway as a pro se Appellant as 13 Appellant has never appeared or filed any documents with the Supreme Court 14 previously. 15 16 V. 17 18 APPELLEE'S RESPONSE IS CONTRADICTORY AS IT RELATES TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CABIN(STRUCTURE) 19 20 A. Appellee's argument misstates the District Court rulings, jumps to conclusions and contradicts himself in his argument 21 In Appellee's argument regarding cabin ownership, Appellee initially states 22 in pertinent part that Allen owned a portion ofthe cabin that lie on his property: 23 "The Court correctly ruled that Allen owned thatportion ofthe cabin 24 located on Allen' property"(Appellee's Response,Page 13,Para 3) s 25 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 12 Appelle then contradicts that analysis ofthe court's ruling by stating that Appellee owned the entire cabin. "The district court correctly ruled that Allen owned the cabin located on Allen's property" (Appellee's Response,Page 17,Para. 2) Appellee then states that Appellee only removed that portion ofthe cabin that Appellee owned and left the "encroaching portioe on Appellant's property. "There is no dispute that Allen left the encroachingportion ofthe cabin on Runkle's property."(Appellee's Response,Page 15,Para.2) {In fact, there is a huge dispute as Allen(Appellee)tore the entire building offofits foundation and left nothing but a destroyed porch on Appellant's property.} "How they would attack the problem never became known, because your client destroyed the cabin before we could get thatfar." (Runlde depo; page 59,lines 10-12) Additionally, Appellee states facts not in evidence by stating that Appellant knew that the cabin was located on Allen's property (This is patently false. Both Appellant and Appellee were aware that the building was split approximately 50/50 by the boundary line with all access, ingress, egress and approach on Appellant's property) by stating the following: "In the present case, Runkle claimed ownership to a cabin that Runkle knew was located on Allen's proper0,."(Appellee's Response,Page 21,Para. 2). B. The property line in general split the structure down the middle at the time Appellee destroyed the structure. The only real relevant fact germane to the above contradictions is that the cabin was found to be bisected almost perfectly on a 50/50 basis with halfthe building on Appellant's property and halfthe building on Appellee's property and APPELLANT S REPLY BRIEF - 13 ' 1 that Appellee tore the ENTIRE structure from its foundation and destroyed it. 2 There was no "encroachine portion ofthe building left on Appellant's property 3 other than a destroyed porch(tom from the building during the removal by 4 Appellee). C. Law enforcement warned Appellee to cease trespassing onto Appellant's property just prior to Appellees destruction of the structure. 5 6 7 8 Appellee's attempt to argue that Appellant had no ownership interest at all 9 (contradicting the District Court's own ruling)or that any portion ofAppellant's 10 ownership portion ofthe cabin was left alone is ludicrous. Appellant's own 11 testimony which were never contradicted by Appellee at any time during the 12 litigation in regards to the destruction ofthe structure and the trespass issue are as 13 follows in pertinent part: 14 15 16 "And that's what they were looking into at the time your client decided to destroy the cabie (Runkle depo. Page 59,lines 1,2) "How they would attack the problem never became known, because your 17 client destroyed the cabin before we could get thatfar. (Runkle depo; page 59, " 18 lines 10-12) 19 "Well, your client went up and cut my lock off, and tore my no-trespassing 20 signs down on the building, which he admitted he did in the admissions. He also 21 admitted that he trespassed on to my property. When Icontacted the sherrs 22 office,Isaid, Listen,Idon't want anyone arrested,I just want you to explain to Mr. 23 Allen that he can'justgo trespassing on myproperty and cutting offmy locks and t 24 my no-trepassing signs. And they did that, and it's noted in the police report that 25 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 14 1 they warned him to stop criminally trespassing on to my property."(Runkle depo; 2 page 60,lines 10-20) It was after Appellee had been warned by law enforcement not to criminally 3 4 trespass on Appellant's property that Appellee,in a fit ofanger tore the cabin off 5 of its foundation and destroyed the entire structure including Appellant's portion of 6 the structure. 7 8 VI. 9 10 APPELLEE FAILS TO MENTION IN HIS ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT NEVER RECEIVED A HEARING PRIOR TO SANCTIONS BEING ISSUED UNDER RULE 11(B) 11 A. Appellee's argument that Appellant was afforded the opportunity for a hearing to determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees fails to address the due process clause. 12 13 14 Appellee quotes Stipes v. First Interstate Bank ofPolson,2005 MT295, 329 15 Mont. 320, 125 P.3d 591,citing as authority in Byrum v. Andren,2007 MT 107, 16 Para. 32, 337 Mont. 167, 2007P.3d 1062. (Appellee's Response, Page 23, Para 17 2) 18 What Appellee fails to point out is that in Stipes v. FirstInterstate Bank of 19 Polson,the Supreme Court(as they have on numerous occasions)ruled that the 20 District Courts MUSThold a hearing prior to issuing sanctions. State v. Toole 21 County(1996), 278 Mont. 253, 262-63, 924 P.2d 693, 698,and in Muri v. Frank, 22 2003 MT316, ¶22, 318 Mont. 269, ¶22,80P.3d 77, ¶ 22.In this case, the District 23 Court issued a ruling that sanctions were granted and held a hearing to determine 24 the amount and reasonableness. The Court in Stipes did not provide for such an 25 after the fact ruling. Rather,the Supreme Court ruled that the hearing must be held APPELLANT S REPLY BRIEF - 15 ' 1 before sanctions are issued thereby giving the possibly sanctioned party a right to due process and a chance to be heard before issuing sanctions. B. Appellee's argument that the hearing on the reasonableness of the attorney's fees is not the hearing required to provide Appellant due process. Appellee argues that the hearing on the reasonableness ofattorney's fees was adequate notice to provide due process to Appellant. In Stipes,the court foun that was not the case by stating as follows: "Moreover, infailing tofollow our case law, the Court simply ignores thefact that the groundsfor imposing the sanction and the amount and reasonableness ofthe sanction are discrete legal issues. These issues require dffferentproofand involve dffferent considerations." The hearing for "amount and reasonableness" ofattorney's fees is not the same hearing required for due process. C. The issue ofthe Rule 11(b)sanctions should not be remanded for a hearing,the sanctions should be reversed in their entirety. In this case,the issue shouldn't even be remanded for a due process hearing, the Rule 11(b)sanctions order should be reversed. There are plenty ofissues still to b sorted out, especially the issue regarding the ownership ofthe cabin and although the court may or may not fmd Appellant's pleadings first class work,the pleadings and claims are meritorious as outlined in the pleadings themselves. Even ifthe court denied Appellant's appeal other than the Rule 11(b) sanctions order, Appellant's conduct certainly did not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct and therefore the order should be reversed, not remanded for a hearing in front of a District Courtjudge that has already determined the sanctions without due process. VII. ALL ADDITIONAL STANDING ON APPELLANTS CLAIMS FLOW FROM THE APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 16 1 OWNERSHIP ISSUE OF 1HE CABIN (STRUCTURE) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A. Ownership by Appellant either wholly or in part justifies the remand of all of Appellant's claims to be remanded for trial. If Appellant is found to own the structure and that it encroaches on Appellee's property or ifit is found(as the District Court ruled)that Appellant owns a portion ofthe cabin, all other claims are thus legitimized and necessarily flow from the ownership issue. B. Should the Court find that Appellant had no ownership issue either wholly or in part,then Appellant's claims all fail Should the Supreme Court find that Appellant had no ownership ofthe cabin 12 either in whole or in part, then all of Appellant's claims necessarily fail with the 13 exception ofthe Rule 11(b)sanctions order issued without due process and 14 therefore Appellant's request in this appeal would also necessarily be denied(with 15 the exception ofthe Rule 11(b)sanctions.) 16 17 C. If Appellant's claims have merit,the issue should be remanded back to the District Court for trial. Should the Supreme Court find that Appellant owned the cabin or a portion 18 ofthe cabin or that the issue needs to be remanded and tried, then all claims have 19 sufficient standing to proceed and to be remanded back to the District Court for 20 trial other than the Rule 11(b)sanctions issue which should be reversed, not 21 remanded for hearing in front ofthe same District Courtjudge that has already 22 issued sanctions against Appellant. 23 VIII. CONCLUSION 24 Appellee's argument is a personal attack rather than a legal argument in an 25 attempt to smear Appellant in front ofthis court. APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 17 1 2 3 Additionally, Appellee fails to state how the partial ownership interest the District Court awarded to Appellee justifies the destruction ofthe entire structure. Appellee also fails to address the requirements that Appellant was owed a 4 duty ofdue process and a hearing prior to the imposition of Rule 11(b)sanctions. 5 There are still a myriad ofissues to be resolved at trial including ownership 6 ofthe cabin which was only partially ruled on by the District Court and all 7 remaining claims which flow from the ownership issue ofthe cabin. 8 9 WHEREFORE,APPELLANT prays to this honorable court for the following: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. Reversal ofthe District Court's order granting sanctions under Rule 11(b). 2.Remand to trial on all remaining issues including waste, intentional infliction ofemotional distress, trespass, conversion, ownership issue ofthe cabin, etc. 3 The court strike from the record the statements made in Appellee's Response . brief as the Court deems proper. 4.Sanctions against Appellee for the personal attack on Appellant which serves no purpose. 5.Return ofthe file with leave to refile Appellant's opening briefto correct any procedural errors should the Court so find it necessary. 18 19 20 21 Dated this 22nd day ( 7 44 Yaak River Road Troy MT 59935 0 295-5463 jo nkle aol.com John D R e, Appellant in propria persona 22 23 24 L ber, 2015 25 APPELLANT S REPLY BRIEF - 18 ' 1 2 3 4 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Appellant in the above entitled action do hereby certify that on the 1s` day ofDecember,2015 I mailed a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Appellant's Reply Brief, by mailing such copy, addressed to: The Law Offices of Amy Guth Attorney for Appellee Duane Allen 408 Mam Avenue Libby, MT 59923 6 GeoffDecker Pro Se 357 Riverview Drive 8 Tro MT 59935 7 11 Runkle Jo Pro e Appellant 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPELLANT S REPLY BRIEF - 19 ' 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that the foregoing briefis proportionally spaced 3 4 typeface of 14 points and does not exceed 5,00o words. Additionally, 5 the briefis not more than 14 pages when deducting the pages utilized 6 for Table of Contents, Authorities and Certificates ofService and 7 Compliance. 8 9 Da d: December 1st, 2015 10 11 unkle pellant Pro Se 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF - 20

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.