{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:121de45d31d4b2fd4235647827404b972657bfe90c3a803eeee7b1634d14de69","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"DA 25-0437","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"2026 MT 136","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"ANN LAFFERTY PFEIFER-MURPHY,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Deceased.","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"In and For the County of Chouteau, Cause No. DV-20-022","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Honorable Kaydee Snipes Ruiz, Presiding Judge","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"COUNSEL OF RECORD:","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"For Appellants:","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Paul A. Sandry, Johnson, Berg, & Saxby, PLLP, Kalispell, Montana","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"For Appellee:","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Michelle K. Ostrye, Silverman Law Office, PLLC, Bozeman,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Montana","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Submitted on Briefs: March 11, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Decided: June 30, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Filed:","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"__________________________________________","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Clerk","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"06/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Case Number: DA 25-0437","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.","paragraph_id":"para_24","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"¶1 The Cook-Reynolds Partnership and Linda Reynolds (collectively, the Partnership","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"or CRP) appeal the Twelfth Judicial District Court’s denial of their M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"motion seeking relief from an Idaho judgment registered in Montana.1 We restate and","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"address the following issue:","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Whether the District Court erred by denying the Partnership’s motion for","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Rule 60(b)(4) relief from a foreign judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"¶2 We reverse.","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"¶3 Linda Reynolds (Linda) and Gerald Cook (Gerald) each inherited a one-half interest","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"in certain Chouteau County farmland (Chouteau Property) after their mother died in 1986.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"In 1992, Linda and Gerald formed the Cook-Reynolds Partnership for the purpose of","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"“conducting the business of leasing and operating farm land and Conservation Reserve","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Program land in Chouteau County, Montana.” Linda and Gerald retained ownership of the","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Chouteau Property as equal cotenants while allowing the Partnership to lease the land to","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"third parties. CRP’s Partnership Agreement specifies that partnership management “shall","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"be by Linda Reynolds as the managing partner” and assigns Linda decision-making","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"authority regarding the care and leasing arrangements of the land, growing crops, land","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"1 The Estate suggests that Linda Reynolds improperly joined the District Court litigation and asks","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"us to dismiss her individual appeal because the Idaho judgment granted no relief against her","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"personally. Because the Estate does not provide any legal support or develop this argument, we","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"decline to distinguish between the Appellants’ arguments. See Est. of Harris v. Reilly, 2025 MT","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"126, ¶ 16, 422 Mont. 383, 570 P.3d 552 (noting Court’s lack of obligation to develop arguments","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"on a party’s behalf).","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"management, and conservation program participation. In June 2008, Linda and Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_49","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"conveyed their respective interests in the Chouteau Property to the Cook-Reynolds","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"Partnership, which continues to operate long-term agricultural leases. The Partnership","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Agreement does not grant Gerald authority to encumber or convey any interest in CRP’s","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"property. The Partnership’s principal place of business has been continuously located in","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Montana, although Gerald lives in Idaho.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"¶4 In 2007, Gerald’s wife, Karin Cook (Karin), was appointed personal representative","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"of the Estate of Ann Lafferty Pfeifer-Murphy (the Estate) in probate proceedings before","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"the Idaho First Judicial District Court (Idaho Court). Between 2007 and 2019, Karin","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"breached her trustee and fiduciary obligations to the Estate by misappropriating hundreds","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"of thousands of dollars from the Estate to benefit herself, Gerald, and Pneumex, Inc., a","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"company they owned. Karin misappropriated these funds, in part, by making loans from","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"the Estate to Pneumex, Inc., and issuing stock in Pneumex, Inc., to the Estate to cover the","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"principal and interest.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"¶5 In 2008 and 2014, Karin and Gerald executed two promissory notes in which Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"purported to pledge the proceeds from selling unspecified land in Chouteau County in order","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"to repay funds borrowed from the Estate. Gerald signed both promissory notes as “Gerry","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Cook,” and neither note references the Cook-Reynolds Partnership. Executed on Pneumex","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"letterhead, the 2008 note promised that “Gerry Cooks [sic] land in Chouteau County and","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"the Cooks residence in Sandpoint Id [sic] will be liquidated” to repay Estate money","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"invested in Pneumex, Inc. The 2014 promissory note stated that principal and interest on","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"a loan from the Estate “shall be payable from the proceeds of the sale of real property","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"consisting of two 320 acre parcels located in Chouteau County, Montana,” which was “to","paragraph_id":"para_72","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"be completed within 60 days of the date of this note.”","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"¶6 On March 6, 2020, the Estate’s remaining beneficiaries (Beneficiaries) petitioned","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"the Idaho Court supervising the probate proceedings to restrain Karin from exercising her","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"personal representative powers until she posted a bond to secure the Estate. The","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"Beneficiaries also asked the Idaho Court to restrain Karin, Gerald, Pneumex, Inc., and the","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"Partnership from disposing of or further encumbering their assets to protect the Estate’s","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"ability to recover any misappropriated funds. The Beneficiaries served their petition and","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"supporting memorandum (collectively, the Petition) on “Gerald Cook personally and as","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Partner: Cook-Reynolds Partnership” to Gerald’s Pneumex e-mail address and by mail to","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Gerald’s residential address in Idaho. The Petition alleged that “Gerald Cook pledged","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"property owned by the Cook-Reynolds Partnership to which he holds a partial interest,”","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"but did not identify wrongdoing by the Partnership itself or indicate that the Partnership","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"was named an interested person in the Estate.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"¶7 On March 7, 2020, a paralegal for Beneficiaries’ counsel emailed Linda “as a","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"courtesy” to inform her of the court filings, “which may impact the Cook-Reynolds","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Partnership and the property it owns in Montana.” Counsel apparently attached copies of","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"the Beneficiaries’ Petition, a proposed restraining order, and a hearing notice.2 The email","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"2 The proposed restraining order and hearing notice do not appear in the record before the District","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Court. The Estate and the Partnership do not appear to dispute whether these documents were","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"actually attached to the March 7 email. The Beneficiaries’ Petition was not officially filed with","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"the Idaho Court until March 9, 2020, so it is unlikely that the hearing notice attached to the March 7","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"email was issued by the Idaho Court.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"continued, “It would seem real estate owned by the Partnership was pledged by Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_96","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"Cook as collateral for loans Gerald Cook, Karin Cook and Pneumex Inc., took from the","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"estate of Mrs. Ann Lafferty Pfeiffer-Murphy [sic].” On March 12, 2020, Linda responded,","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"“Yes, I have received your email. Thank you, . . . .”","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"¶8 On March 19, 2020, the Idaho Court held an emergency hearing on Beneficiaries’","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Petition. According to the hearing minutes, Gerald appeared as the “husband of Karin","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"Cook, PR” and argued that Karin and he received insufficient notice of the hearing to obtain","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"counsel.3 The minutes do not reference the Partnership at all. The Idaho Court restrained","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"Karin, Gerald, Pneumex, Inc., and the Partnership from disposing of or encumbering their","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"assets until Karin posted a bond. The restraining order was served on Gerald personally","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"and as partner of CRP through his Pneumex e-mail address and by mail at his Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"address; Linda was not served.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"¶9 On March 20, 2020, the Beneficiaries’ counsel emailed Linda to inform her of the","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Idaho Court’s orders “requiring Karin Cook to post a bond and restraining the personal","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"representative and others.” The email explained, “Included in the order is a restrainment","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"[sic] on property of the Cook-Reynolds Partnership. You will note while reading the order","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"that it is in effect only until such time as Mrs. Cook posts a bond to secure the estate.”","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Counsel apparently attached copies of the Idaho Court’s hearing minutes, restraining order,","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"and order to post bond.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"3 The parties did not provide a transcript of the Idaho Court’s hearing, but the hearing minutes are","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"part of the District Court’s record.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"¶10 In August 2020, Karin and Gerald entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement","paragraph_id":"para_118","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"with the Estate and its Beneficiaries, confessing to a $1,072,944.78 judgment. Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"purported to execute the confession on CRP’s behalf, thereby including the Partnership as","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"a judgment debtor jointly and severally responsible for the total judgment. Pursuant to the","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Confidential Settlement Agreement, Karin and Gerald executed a Stipulation for Entry of","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"Order of Judgment (Stipulation) with the other judgment debtors, the Estate, and the","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Beneficiaries. In the Stipulation, the parties jointly stated that the Idaho Court had","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"jurisdiction in the matter and waived any right to appear or to plead further in favor of the","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Idaho Court entering judgment without a hearing. Gerald signed the Confidential","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation in his individual capacity, as president of","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Pneumex, Inc., and another Idaho corporation, and as “General Partner, Cook-Reynolds","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"Partnership.”","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"¶11 On September 4, 2020, the Idaho Court entered a judgment pursuant to the","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"Stipulation in the total amount of $1,072,944.78 in favor of the Estate against the","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Partnership and others (Idaho Judgment). The appended Certificate of Service indicates","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"that a copy of the judgment was mailed to the Partnership at Linda’s Montana residential","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"address. On September 11, 2020, the Beneficiaries domesticated the Idaho Judgment by","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"filing a copy in the Montana Twelfth Judicial District Court (District Court).","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"¶12 On December 18, 2024, the Estate and its Beneficiaries applied to the District Court","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"for a writ of execution of the domesticated Idaho Judgment against the Partnership. By","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"December 31, 2024, Linda engaged counsel on the Partnership’s behalf to challenge the","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Idaho Judgment. On January 2, 2025, the Partnership moved to quash the writ of execution","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"and asked the District Court to declare the Idaho Judgment void for lack of personal","paragraph_id":"para_141","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"jurisdiction. On February 4, 2025, the Partnership moved to vacate the Idaho Judgment as","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"void for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and on other Rule 60","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"grounds.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"¶13 On May 6, 2025, the District Court held a hearing on the Rule 60 motion. Linda","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"testified that the Partnership had never conducted any business in Idaho, with Karin, or","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"with the Estate. Linda testified that the Partnership never benefited from and had no","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"knowledge of Karin’s misappropriation of Estate assets. Linda attested that the Partnership","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"did not pledge its Chouteau Property to the Estate and that she had only authorized two","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"mortgages against the Chouteau Property, which Linda and Gerald both executed as","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"partners in September 2014. Linda testified that she was not served a complaint or","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"summons related to the Idaho probate proceedings, and that she remained unaware of the","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"Idaho Judgment until the Estate attempted to execute it against the Partnership in December","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"2024. Linda admitted that the Idaho Judgment was mailed to her correct address, but she","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"explained that she “would not have paid attention to any mailing if it came” in 2020 because","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"she was taking care of her daughter, who was undergoing and recovering from cancer","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"treatment in Oregon. Linda testified that Gerald and she never discussed confessing to a","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"judgment against the Partnership and that she had not seen the Confidential Settlement","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Agreement until after December 2024. The Estate called no witnesses and produced no","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"affidavits.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"¶14 The District Court did not rule on the Partnership’s Rule 60 motion to vacate within","paragraph_id":"para_162","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"its extended 120-day time frame, and the motion was deemed denied by the operation of","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"M. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) and 59(f) on June 4, 2025.","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"STANDARDS OF REVIEW","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"¶15 The nature of the final judgment, order, or proceeding from which relief is sought","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"and the specific basis of a Rule 60(b) motion determines the applicable standard of review.","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose’s Saloon, Inc., 2007 MT 202, ¶ 16, 338 Mont. 423, 166 P.3d 451.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a Rule 60(b)(4) motion, because whether a","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"judgment is void is a conclusion of law. Essex, ¶ 16. A district court’s deemed denial of","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"a motion to set aside judgment is reviewed for error on its merits. See Flathead Lakers","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Inc. v. Mont. Dep’t of Nat. Res. & Conservation, 2023 MT 85, ¶ 68, 412 Mont. 225,","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"530 P.3d 769.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"DISCUSSION","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"¶16 Whether the District Court erred by denying the Partnership’s motion for","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Rule 60(b)(4) relief from a foreign judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"¶17 The Partnership argues that the District Court incorrectly denied Rule 60(b)(4) relief","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"because the Idaho Court’s judgment against the Partnership is void for lack of personal","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"jurisdiction.4 The Estate responds that res judicata precludes collateral attack on the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Judgment and that the Partnership voluntarily submitted to the Idaho Court’s personal","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"jurisdiction through Gerald’s actions.","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"4 Because we hold that Rule 60(b)(4) relief is warranted, we do not reach the Partnership’s","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"alternative arguments pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) or Rule 60(d).","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"¶18 Although we owe full faith and credit to other states’ final judgments, they may be","paragraph_id":"para_185","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"challenged for invalidity. Carr v. Bett, 1998 MT 266, ¶ 42, 291 Mont. 326, 970 P.2d 1017.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act allows a party to raise the rendering","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"court’s lack of personal jurisdiction as grounds to vacate a foreign judgment filed in","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"Montana. Carr, ¶ 42 (citing § 25-9-503, MCA). A Rule 60(b) motion is the appropriate","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"vehicle for seeking relief from a foreign judgment. Carr, ¶ 32. Rule 60(b)(4) allows a","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"court to grant relief from a final judgment or order because the judgment is “void” for lack","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"of jurisdiction. Greater Missoula Area Fed’n of Early Childhood Educators v. Child Start,","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"Inc., 2009 MT 362, ¶ 21, 353 Mont. 201, 211 P.3d 881. A motion for Rule 60(b)(4) relief","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"must be made “within a reasonable time” after the entry of judgment. M. R. Civ. P.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"60(c)(1); Koch v. Billings Sch. Dist. No. 2, 253 Mont. 261, 269, 833 P.2d 181, 186 (1992).","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"¶19 An Idaho court could only exercise personal jurisdiction over the Partnership—an","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"out-of-state general partnership—through Idaho’s long-arm statute or if the Partnership","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"voluntarily appeared or waived any personal jurisdiction objection. See Telford v. Smith","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"County, 314 P.3d 179, 182-83 (Idaho 2013). The Partnership argues that because it never","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"conducted business in Idaho, had no connections with the Estate, and obtained no monies","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"from the Estate, the Idaho long-arm statute is not satisfied. Idaho Code § 5-514 (2020).","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"The Partnership concedes that Gerald purported to sign the Confidential Settlement","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"Agreement on its behalf, but contends that Gerald had no authority to appear in the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"probate proceedings or consent to personal jurisdiction on the Partnership’s behalf. The","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"Estate responds that res judicata prevents the Partnership from relitigating the jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"question, as Gerald consented to Idaho jurisdiction over the Partnership. The Estate asserts","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"that Gerald’s actions as a general partner bound the Partnership because the Estate and","paragraph_id":"para_208","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"Beneficiaries lacked knowledge of his limited authority or, alternatively, because Linda","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"ratified his unauthorized conduct. The dispositive issue, therefore, is whether Gerald was","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"authorized to act on the Partnership’s behalf in the Idaho probate proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"¶20 Although res judicata applies to questions of jurisdiction, the questions must be","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"“fully and fairly litigated” in the rendering court to be accorded full faith and credit.","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. N.C. Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n,","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"455 U.S. 691, 706, 102 S. Ct. 1357, 1367 (1982); Genuine Parts Co. v. Rascal’s Auto Parts,","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"Inc., 2008 MT 313, ¶ 6, 346 Mont. 56, 192 P.3d 1153. In Genuine Parts, we determined","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"that a personal jurisdiction issue was fully and fairly litigated because appellants had made","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"the same argument before the rendering Georgia court. Genuine Parts, ¶ 8; see also In re","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"Child Support of Mason, 1998 MT 192, ¶¶ 17-19, 290 Mont. 253, 964 P.2d 743 (barring","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"relitigation when rendering Utah court received extensive briefing regarding personal","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"jurisdiction and parties presented identical arguments in Montana court).","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"¶21 Unlike the rendering courts in Genuine Parts and Mason, the Idaho Court did not","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"receive briefing about its jurisdiction over the Partnership and made no express finding.","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"The Idaho Court did not hear argument about whether Gerald could bind the Partnership","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"in dealings with third parties or voluntarily subject the out-of-state Partnership to Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"jurisdiction. The Idaho Court simply entered judgment against the Partnership pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"the Stipulation, which Gerald purported to execute as general partner of the Cook-Reynolds","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Partnership. But if Gerald could not act for CRP in the proceedings, then CRP had no","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"opportunity to argue that the Idaho Court lacked personal jurisdiction. Whether the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"Court had personal jurisdiction over the Partnership was not fully and fairly litigated in the","paragraph_id":"para_231","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"Idaho probate proceedings, leaving Montana courts free to consider whether Gerald had","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"authority to consent to personal jurisdiction on the Partnership’s behalf.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"¶22 Under the Partnership Agreement, Gerald had no actual authority to act on behalf","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"of the Partnership in the Idaho probate proceedings. See § 35-10-106(1), MCA (“[A]","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"partnership agreement governs relations among the partners and between the partners and","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"the partnership.”). The Partnership Agreement designated Linda as the managing partner","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"and reserved final management decision-making authority to her. The Estate asserts that","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"Gerald’s actions as a general partner could still bind the Partnership because he was","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"apparently acting within the ordinary course of the Partnership’s business, and even if","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"Gerald lacked authority, Linda ratified his conduct on the Partnership’s behalf.","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"¶23 Each partner is an “agent of the partnership for the purpose of its business.”","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"Section 35-10-301(1), MCA. A partner can bind the partnership to third parties subject to","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"the conditions in § 35-10-301(1) or (2), MCA, and other principles of agency law. See","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"§ 35-10-105(1), MCA (“Unless displaced by a particular provision of this chapter, the","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"principles of law and equity supplement this chapter.”); 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 171,","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Westlaw (database updated Apr. 2026) (“[e]stablished principles of agency law will apply","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"under the Uniform Partnership Acts” unless displaced by a particular provision). If the","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"partner is “apparently carrying on in the ordinary course of the partnership business,” the","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"partner’s act will bind the partnership unless the third party knows or has received","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"notification that the partner lacks authority to act for the partnership. Section 35-10-301(1),","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"MCA. If not apparently acting within the ordinary course of the partnership business, a","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"partner binds the partnership “only if the act was authorized by the other partners.”","paragraph_id":"para_254","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"Section 35-10-301(2), MCA. In agency terms, § 35-10-301(1), MCA, governs a partner","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"acting with apparent authority, while § 35-10-301(2), MCA, recognizes that a partner","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"without apparent authority may have actual authority to bind the partnership. See 68 C.J.S.","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Partnership § 178.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"¶24 To justify its application of § 35-10-301(1), MCA, the Estate argues that Gerald was","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"acting within the ordinary course of the Partnership’s business when he engaged in the","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"Idaho probate proceedings. The Estate first asserts that the “record is devoid of facts” to","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"overcome a presumption that Gerald was acting within the ordinary course of the","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"Partnership’s business. The Estate points to § 26-1-602(20), MCA, and Rock Island Plow","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"Co. v. Cut Bank Implement Co., 101 Mont. 117, 53 P.2d 116 (1935), which recognize the","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"rebuttable presumption that the “ordinary course of business has been followed.” But this","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"presumption simply establishes an evidentiary framework for proving that a business entity","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"adhered to its usual practices absent controverting evidence. See, e.g., New Hope Lutheran","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Ministry v. Faith Lutheran Church of Great Falls, Inc., 2014 MT 69, ¶ 48, 374 Mont. 229,","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"328 P.3d 586 (holding that defendant did not meet shifted evidentiary burden on summary","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"judgment to prove plaintiff congregation had not followed the ordinary course of business","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"when adopting new constitution), overruled in part on other grounds by Warrington v.","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2020 MT 174, 400 Mont. 360, 467 P.3d 567. The presumption","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"has no bearing on the threshold question of what the Partnership’s ordinary course of","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"business is and whether, in this case, Gerald was acting within the ordinary course of the","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"Partnership’s business.","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"¶25 The Estate next argues that it is within the ordinary course of the Partnership’s","paragraph_id":"para_277","court_paragraph":13},{"text":"business to borrow money secured by its Chouteau Property. The Partnership’s agricultural","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"purpose and usual business conduct demonstrate a much narrower scope of business. See,","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"e.g., Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2003 MT 357, ¶¶ 40-45, 319 Mont. 23, 83 P.3d 256 (holding","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"that partner’s unilateral decision to transfer uneconomical farm leases was within","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"agricultural partnership’s ordinary course of business because partner had managed the","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"leases alone for 30 years and transferees would continue farming the land as before);","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"Rodgers v. Saunders, 144 Mont. 424, 428-29, 396 P.2d 817, 819 (1964) (reasoning that","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"partner’s contracts with dance students were within ordinary course of dance studio’s","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"business, but charges on studio’s account for personal gasoline were outside scope of","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"partnership business). The Partnership Agreement demonstrates that CRP’s purpose is to","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"manage its farmland and conservation land in Chouteau County. Linda testified that","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"agricultural leases were the Partnership’s sole source of income, that the Partnership never","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"conducted any business in Idaho or with Karin, and that the Partnership did not benefit","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"from Karin’s misappropriation of Estate assets. Linda testified that the Partnership took","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"no loans besides the mortgages executed by both Linda and Gerald as partners. The Estate","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"presented no contradictory testimony, and Linda denied the Estate’s assertions on","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"cross-examination that the Partnership had ever pledged its property as collateral for","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"monies Gerald borrowed from the Estate.","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"¶26 The Estate asserts that the 2008 and 2014 promissory notes executed by Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"demonstrate that he borrowed money from the Estate on the Partnership’s behalf, and that","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"the Partnership would ordinarily defend itself against contract and tort liability arising from","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"those loans.5 This argument is unavailing. First, Gerald did not purport to execute the","paragraph_id":"para_300","court_paragraph":14},{"text":"2008 and 2014 promissory notes on the Partnership’s behalf. Neither note mentions the","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"Cook-Reynolds Partnership or Gerald’s role as general partner, and the 2008 note was on","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"Pneumex letterhead. The notes’ references to “Gerry Cooks [sic] land in Chouteau","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"County” and to “two 320 acre parcels located in Chouteau County, Montana” do not","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"suggest that Gerald purported to bind the Partnership rather than himself personally. The","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"2008 and 2014 promissory notes are not the Partnership’s obligations. See Schrammeck v.","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 258 Mont. 391, 398, 853 P.2d 702, 706 (1993) (considering","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"whether loan documents purported to bind the partnership before determining partner’s","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"authority to bind partnership pursuant to § 35-10-301(1), MCA); Est. of Pruyn v. Axmen","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"Propane, Inc., 2009 MT 448, ¶¶ 43, 49, 354 Mont. 208, 223 P.3d 845 (holding that agents","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"lacked apparent authority to bind principal business when promissory note did not","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"reference business or indicate that individuals were signing in representative capacity),","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"overruled in part on other grounds by Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 2018 MT 182,","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"392 Mont. 139, 424 P.3d 571.","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"¶27 Second, the record does not show that Gerald participated in the Idaho probate","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"proceedings to protect the Partnership from liability, especially when considering that the","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"5 The Estate’s tort theory is premised on § 35-10-305(1), MCA (partnership liable for loss or injury","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"to a person as a result of a wrongful act of a partner “acting in the ordinary course of business of","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"the partnership or with the authority of the partnership”) and § 35-10-305(2), MCA (partnership","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"liable for loss caused by partner’s misapplication of money in partnership’s custody if money","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"received in course of partnership business). But as both liability theories rely on action being taken","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"in the ordinary course of partnership business, the analysis again comes down to whether Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"was acting within the scope of CRP’s business or CRP authorized his actions.","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"Beneficiaries did not allege that the Partnership itself had wronged the Estate in any way.","paragraph_id":"para_325","court_paragraph":15},{"text":"The Beneficiaries’ March 2020 Petition and supporting memorandum alleges, “Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"Cook pledged property owned by the Cook-Reynolds Partnership to which he holds a","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"partial interest.” Counsel’s March 7, 2020 email to Linda states that Gerald pledged “real","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"estate owned by the Partnership,” not that he did so on the Partnership’s behalf. By all","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"accounts in the record, Gerald participated in the Idaho Court’s hearing on the Petition as","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"Karin’s husband, defended Karin’s actions as benefitting the Estate, and did not mention","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"the Partnership. The Idaho Court restrained “the Cook-Reynolds Partnership, by Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"Cook, partner,” from disposing of or encumbering its property until Karin posted bond,","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"and the restraining order was served on Gerald personally and as CRP’s partner. But these","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"references indicate concern that the Partnership’s assets would disappear before","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"Beneficiaries could recoup misappropriated funds from Gerald’s individual interest in the","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"Partnership, not that Gerald was protecting the Partnership from the Beneficiaries’ claims.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"¶28 According to the record before the District Court, Gerald first purported to act on","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"CRP’s behalf when he signed the Confidential Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"as CRP’s general partner in August 2020. The Confidential Settlement Agreement contains","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"the only reference to a relationship between the Partnership and the Estate; it states that","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"other debtors and “the Cook-Reynolds Partnership all benefited from [Karin] Cook’s","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"misappropriation of Estate funds.” Linda testified that this statement was false because the","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"Partnership would not have known or gained from Karin’s misappropriation. The Estate","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"provides no other basis for inferring that Gerald was protecting the Partnership by","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"confessing to judgment on its behalf. Unlike the transfer of agricultural leases in Baltrusch","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"and like the partner’s personal charges for gasoline in Rodgers, Gerald was not acting","paragraph_id":"para_348","court_paragraph":16},{"text":"within the ordinary course of the Partnership’s business when engaging in the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"probate proceedings. Accordingly, Gerald’s authority to bind the Partnership is governed","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"by § 35-10-301(2), MCA.","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"¶29 A partner acting outside of the ordinary course of the partnership business can only","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"bind the partnership if authorized by the other partners. Section 35-10-301(2), MCA.","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"Authorization can occur through prior permission or subsequent ratification. Schrammeck,","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"258 Mont. at 399-400, 853 P.2d at 707. The record does not show that Linda authorized","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"Gerald to act on CRP’s behalf in the Idaho probate proceedings. Linda attested that she","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"did not provide permission to Gerald to execute the Confidential Settlement Agreement or","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"the Stipulation on the Partnership’s behalf. Linda testified that Gerald never talked to her","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"about confessing to a judgment against the Partnership and that she had not seen the","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"Confidential Settlement Agreement before the Estate’s application for a writ of execution.","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"The Estate points to the March 2020 emails to show that Linda “silently relied” on Gerald","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"to defend the Partnership in the Idaho probate proceedings, which “explicitly authorized”","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"Gerald to appear in the case and take binding legal positions on the Partnership’s behalf.","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"Attempting to reconcile the inherent contradiction between silence and explicit","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"authorization, the Estate appears to argue that Linda implicitly or explicitly ratified","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"Gerald’s unauthorized conduct on behalf of the Partnership.6","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"6 Having devoted most of its argument to showing that Gerald acted within the ordinary course of","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"the Partnership’s business and applying § 35-10-301(1), MCA, the Estate does not directly engage","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"with the Partnership’s § 35-10-301(2), MCA, analysis. However, the Estate’s discussion of","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"common law ratification speaks to the authorization condition in § 35-10-301(2), MCA.","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"¶30 A principal with “knowledge of the material facts may ratify a prior unauthorized","paragraph_id":"para_372","court_paragraph":17},{"text":"act or transaction by express declaration or implicitly by acts, statements, or conduct which","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"reasonably manifests an intent to affirm or be bound by the act.” Associated Mgmt. Servs.,","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"Inc., ¶ 40. A principal ratifies an unauthorized act by “knowingly accepting or retaining","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"the benefit of the act.” Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc., ¶ 40 (quoting § 28-10-211, MCA).","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"As “mere acquiescence is not necessarily conclusive of ratification,” Associated Mgmt.","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"Servs., Inc., ¶ 41, the party asserting ratification must prove (1) the principal accepted the","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"benefits of the agent’s act, (2) with full knowledge of the facts, and (3) circumstances or","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"an affirmative election indicating an intention to adopt the unauthorized arrangement. Scott","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"D. Erler, D.D.S. Profit Sharing Plan v. Creative Fin. & Invs., L.L.C., 2009 MT 36, ¶ 27,","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"349 Mont. 207, 203 P.3d 744 (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. v. Lovely Agency, 200 Mont. 447,","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"453, 652 P.2d 1160, 1163 (1982)).","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"¶31 Linda never had full knowledge of the facts related to Gerald’s purported","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"appearance in the Idaho probate proceedings, consent to personal jurisdiction, or","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"confession of liability on CRP’s behalf. The March 2020 emails to Linda did not suggest","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"that Gerald purported to act on the Partnership’s behalf before the Idaho Court or to consent","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"to personal jurisdiction over the Partnership. Even if the March 2020 emails included","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"Gerald’s 2008 and 2014 promissory notes, they did not purport to bind the Partnership and","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"would not suggest to Linda that Gerald might be acting on the Partnership’s behalf in the","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"Idaho probate proceedings. Without full knowledge of these facts, Linda’s March 2020","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"email correspondence with Beneficiaries’ counsel could not ratify Gerald’s prior","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"unauthorized appearance in the proceedings as acting on the Partnership’s behalf.","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"¶32 The Estate is incorrect that Linda’s March 2020 email correspondence could","paragraph_id":"para_395","court_paragraph":18},{"text":"prospectively ratify Gerald’s attempt to bind the Partnership by the Confidential Settlement","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"Agreement and the Stipulation in August 2020. By definition, ratification is the","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"“affirmative confirmation of a prior act.” Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc., ¶ 40 (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"added). The Estate presents no evidence that Linda knew that Gerald would subsequently","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"purport to act on CRP’s behalf to settle the Beneficiaries’ claims or sign the Stipulation,","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"which consented to the Idaho Court’s jurisdiction.","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"¶33 Linda did not gain full knowledge of the Confidential Settlement Agreement’s or","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"the Stipulation’s contents until over four years after Gerald executed them. Linda testified","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"that she had not seen the Confidential Settlement Agreement, including Gerald’s","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"confession of CRP’s contract and tort liability, before the Estate attempted to execute the","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"Idaho Judgment in December 2024. The Estate presents no evidence that Linda previously","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"received copies of the Confidential Settlement Agreement or the Stipulation. Even the","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"entry of the Idaho Judgment and service by mail did not inform Linda that Gerald had","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"purported to consent to personal jurisdiction and admit to liability on the Partnership’s","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"behalf. The Idaho Judgment identified CRP as a culpable party against whom the Estate","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"and its beneficiaries could recover, but it did not indicate that Gerald had purported to","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"voluntarily appear on the Partnership’s behalf and to consent to personal jurisdiction.","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"Linda also testified that she had no knowledge of the Idaho Judgment or its contents, since","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"she let her mail accumulate without opening it during 2020.","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"¶34 Linda did not expressly or impliedly ratify Gerald’s unauthorized appearance in the","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"Idaho probate proceedings, stipulation to the Idaho Court’s personal jurisdiction over the","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"Partnership, or waiver of personal jurisdiction objections. Linda did not ratify Gerald’s","paragraph_id":"para_418","court_paragraph":19},{"text":"unauthorized confession to the Partnership’s contract and tort liability. Accordingly,","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"Gerald was not authorized to appear for or bind the Partnership during the Idaho probate","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"¶35 The Partnership has demonstrated that the Idaho long-arm statute was not satisfied","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"as CRP has never engaged in business in Idaho, did not conduct business transactions with","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"the Estate, and did not act tortiously against the Estate. See Idaho Code § 5-514(a), (b)","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"(2020) (applying Idaho jurisdiction if person or their agent transacts business or commits","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"tortious act within Idaho). Because Linda did not ratify Gerald’s unauthorized appearance","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"on the Partnership’s behalf, the Partnership did not voluntarily appear in the Idaho probate","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"proceedings or waive its objections to the Idaho Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction. See","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"Telford, 314 P.3d at 182-83 (recognizing that voluntary general appearance waives","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"objection to lack of personal jurisdiction). The Idaho Judgment against the Partnership is","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"void for lack of jurisdiction, warranting Rule 60(b)(4) relief.","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"¶36 Finally, the Estate argues that the Partnership’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion was untimely","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"because it occurred four years after the entry of the Idaho Judgment. The Partnership","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"acknowledges that the time between the entry of judgment and moving for relief was","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"“appreciable” but argues that the circumstances justified the delay.","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"¶37 Rule 60(c)(1) requires a motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4), (5), or (6), to be made","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"“within a reasonable time,” but it does not specify a definite time limit. Koch, 253 Mont.","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"at 269, 833 P.2d at 186. What counts as a reasonable time depends on the particular facts","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"of each case and is within the court’s sound discretion.7 In re Marriage of Waters,","paragraph_id":"para_440","court_paragraph":20},{"text":"223 Mont. 183, 189, 724 P.2d 726, 730 (1986). Relevant considerations include prejudice","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"to the party opposing the motion and the basis for the movant’s delay. Waters, 223 Mont.","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"at 189, 724 P.2d at 730; United States v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 1985)","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"(analyzing timeliness of analogous Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6) motions by considering","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"whether opposing party was prejudiced and movant had good reason for delayed action).","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"¶38 In Waters, we held that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion was made within a reasonable time","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"because the opposing party was not prejudiced by the two-year delay between Congress’s","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"enactment of new grounds for relief and the movant’s use of them. Waters, 223 Mont.","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"at 189, 724 P.2d at 730-31. Twenty-seven months after Congress allowed state courts to","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"equitably divide military retirement pay upon divorce, Doris Waters sought to amend her","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"dissolution decree to include her ex-husband’s military pension as a marital asset. Waters,","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"223 Mont. at 185, 724 P.2d at 728. Because the district court substituted Doris’s new right","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"to share her ex-husband’s pension payments for his existing spousal maintenance","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"obligation, we “perceive[d] no prejudice” to the ex-husband by Doris’s delayed Rule","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"60(b)(6) motion. Waters, 223 Mont. at 189, 724 P.2d at 730-31. In Holtzman, a five-year","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"delay before filing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6) motions was reasonable because the","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"movant provided adequate reasons for not appealing the original judgment and the delay","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"7 The Estate asserts that because the District Court acted within its discretion to find the","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"Rule 60(b)(4) motion untimely, this Court must affirm the District Court. This is a puzzling","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"assertion, because the District Court made no such finding. The Partnership’s Rule 60(b)(4)","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"motion was deemed denied by operation of rule. The parties provided multiple grounds upon","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"which the District Court could have denied the Rule 60(b)(4) motion, and timeliness was not","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"necessarily the dispositive issue.","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"did not prejudice the opposing party. Holtzman, 762 F.2d at 725. Four years after a","paragraph_id":"para_465","court_paragraph":21},{"text":"permanent injunction restrained the movant from importing motor vehicles in violation of","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"the Clean Air Act, he learned that the Government interpreted the injunction more broadly","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"than the importer had understood. Holtzman, 762 F.2d at 723. The importer’s reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"interpretation of the injunction informed his decision to not appeal the original judgment,","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"and his failure to appeal did not prejudice the Government. Holtzman, 762 F.2d at 725. In","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"contrast, we held that a five-month delay in moving for Rule 60(b)(6) relief from a default","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"judgment was unreasonable when the movants clearly knew about the judgment within two","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"weeks of its entry and could have moved for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) within the","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"then-applicable 60-day deadline. Bahm v. Southworth, 2000 MT 244, ¶ 16, 301 Mont. 434,","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"10 P.3d 99.","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"¶39 The Partnership moved for Rule 60(b)(4) relief within a reasonable time under the","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"particular facts of this case. As in Waters and Holtzman, we perceive no prejudice to the","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"Estate as a result of the four-year delay between the entry of judgment against the","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"Partnership and its motion for relief. Even if the Partnership knew of the Idaho Judgment,","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"the Estate does not explain how it was harmed by the delay or how it detrimentally relied","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"upon the Idaho Judgment. The Estate presents no evidence that it attempted to enforce the","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"Idaho Judgment against the Partnership until the Estate applied for a writ of execution in","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"the District Court in December 2024, over four years after the entry of judgment, after","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"which Linda immediately sought to vacate the judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"¶40 Like the vehicle importer in Holtzman and unlike the movants in Bahm, the","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"Partnership provides a reasonable basis for the four-year delay. Linda testified that she","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"was not aware of the Idaho Judgment until the Estate attempted to execute it in December","paragraph_id":"para_488","court_paragraph":22},{"text":"2024. Linda admitted that her correct address was listed on the Idaho Judgment’s","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"Certificate of Service, but she reasonably explained that she let her mail accumulate","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"without opening it during 2020 while focusing on supporting her daughter’s cancer","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"treatment and recovery. Once Linda learned of the Idaho Judgment in December 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"when the Estate finally sought to execute it, she took immediate action by hiring an","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"attorney, opposing the writ of execution, and asking the District Court to vacate the","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"¶41 The Estate argues that Linda’s failure to diligently monitor her mail in 2020 makes","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"the four-year delay inexcusable. But Linda had no reason to expect mail related to the","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"Idaho probate proceedings or an order entering judgment against the Partnership, unlike","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"the untimely movants in the Estate’s cited authority. See In re Wilson, 349 B.R. 831, 833,","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"835-36 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2006) (finding that in debtor-initiated bankruptcy proceedings,","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"debtor’s failure to monitor mail at address he provided in bankruptcy petition did not satisfy","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"“good cause” standard required for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) relief or any elements for Fed.","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) relief); Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087, 1087-88","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that failure to respond to properly served petition was","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"inexcusable neglect because defendants were fully aware of the pending controversy, were","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"represented by counsel during pre-litigation negotiations, and left on two-month European","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"trip without establishing mail monitoring). The March 2020 emails from Beneficiaries’","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"counsel notified Linda that Gerald’s actions might affect the Partnership’s property and","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"that the Partnership was restrained from disposing of or encumbering its property until","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"Karin posted a bond. They did not indicate that the Estate would seek judgment against","paragraph_id":"para_511","court_paragraph":23},{"text":"the Partnership itself. Nor did they suggest that Gerald purported to act on CRP’s behalf","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"by appearing in the proceedings, consenting to the Idaho Court’s personal jurisdiction, or","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"admitting to tort and contract liability. Rather, the March 2020 emails informed Linda of","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"the proceedings as a “courtesy,” and she testified that she was never served a summons or","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"complaint relating to them. Having never before received mail regarding the Idaho probate","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"proceedings, Linda had no duty to examine each piece of mail sent to her home while she","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"focused on caring for her daughter.","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"¶42 Finally, the Estate argues that because Gerald knew of and consented to the entry of","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"judgment on CRP’s behalf, Linda’s lack of personal knowledge of the Idaho Judgment is","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"irrelevant to the timeliness of the Partnership’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion. The Estate does not","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"distinguish this position from its unsuccessful argument that Gerald could consent to","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"jurisdiction on the Partnership’s behalf, and it cites no legal authority requiring a different","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"outcome. We are “not obligated to develop arguments on behalf of parties to an appeal,","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"nor are we to guess a party’s precise position, or develop legal analysis that may lend","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"support to his position.” Est. of Harris v. Reilly, 2025 MT 126, ¶ 16, 422 Mont. 383,","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"570 P.3d 552. Gerald’s personal knowledge of the Idaho Judgment does not affect the","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"timeliness of the Partnership’s motion.","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"¶43 The Partnership has demonstrated a reasonable basis for not learning of the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"Judgment until December 2024, and the Estate has shown no prejudice from the four-year","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"delay. Under these circumstances, the Partnership moved for Rule 60(b)(4) relief within a","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"reasonable time.","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_534","court_paragraph":24},{"text":"¶44 The District Court erred by denying the Partnership’s motion for Rule 60(b)(4)","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"relief. The domesticated Idaho Judgment against the Cook-Reynolds Partnership is void","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"for the Idaho Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Partnership made its Rule","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"60(b)(4) motion within a reasonable time. We reverse the District Court’s deemed denial","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"of the Partnership’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion and vacate that portion of the domesticated Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"Judgment holding the Cook-Reynolds Partnership liable to the Estate and its remaining","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"beneficiaries for the total judgment and interest. Our decision does not affect the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"Judgment as it pertains to other judgment debtors.","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"We Concur:","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"/S/ CORY J. SWANSON","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"/S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"/S/ JIM RICE","paragraph_id":"para_548"}],"word_count":6583,"cites":["455 U.S. 691","762 F.2d 720"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"8a7796942c53f0f791f267b8eb312273d358b1e6fb02f770d0cc7424cadc4aad","source_url":"https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=574208","fetched_at":"2026-10-17T00:21:16.635+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30","verification":{"stored_sha256":"8a7796942c53f0f791f267b8eb312273d358b1e6fb02f770d0cc7424cadc4aad","recomputed_sha256":"8a7796942c53f0f791f267b8eb312273d358b1e6fb02f770d0cc7424cadc4aad","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T01:08:29.156Z"}},"hash":"sha256:121de45d31d4b2fd4235647827404b972657bfe90c3a803eeee7b1634d14de69","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:121de45d31d4b2fd4235647827404b972657bfe90c3a803eeee7b1634d14de69","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T02:08:29.705Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/mont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-77185f7e78355c38392bf554a292f354","response_hash":"sha256:121de45d31d4b2fd4235647827404b972657bfe90c3a803eeee7b1634d14de69"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T14:27:57.136Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Amont-da-25-0437-2026-06-30&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":24832}}