MATTHEW J. SISLER,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
JULIA BENNETT-AMES,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV 2001-939,
Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Matthew J. Sisler (pro se), Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
David M. Sandler, Bothe & Lauridsen, P.C., Columbia Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 26, 2006
Decided: December 12, 2006
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be
included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific
Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Matthew J. Sisler (Sisler), an attorney who has been indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law, brought this action alleging that Julia Bennett-Ames (Julia)
fraudulently induced him to represent her in an action which Sisler filed on her behalf
and on behalf of three other plaintiffs. Sisler also complained that Julia breached a
contract under which she allegedly agreed to pay him attorney fees. Julia
counterclaimed, alleging malicious prosecution in that Sisler had brought his action to
retaliate against her for testimony which she gave to the Supreme Court’s Commission on
Practice.
¶3 Julia moved for partial summary judgment on Sisler’s fraudulent inducement
claim. In its February 10, 2005 Opinion and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,
from which Sisler appeals, the District Court granted Julia’s motion, ruling that the
testimony Julia gave to the Commission on Practice was inadmissible, therefore, Sisler
could not present evidence that Julia fraudulently induced him to represent her.
Moreover, the District Court ruled that even if Sisler’s allegations that Julia fraudulently
induced him to represent her were true, Sisler suffered no damages, which is an essential
element to a fraud claim.
2
¶4 The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement under which Sisler
agreed to dismiss his claim for attorney fees with prejudice. Sisler also agreed to dismiss
with prejudice all claims for monetary damages, reserving his right to appeal the District
Court’s decision granting Julia summary judgment on the fraudulent inducement count of
his complaint. Sisler agreed, however, that if this Court were to reverse and remand, he
may seek only a declaratory judgment that the allegations in his fraudulent inducement
claim are “true and correct.” In exchange, Julia agreed to pay Sisler one dollar and to
dismiss her malicious prosecution counterclaim with prejudice. As noted, Sisler now
appeals the District Court’s order granting Julia summary judgment on his fraudulent
inducement claim.
¶5 Having reviewed the record and extensive briefs in this case, we conclude that
Sisler has failed to demonstrate that the District Court erred in ruling that Julia was
entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that Sisler suffered no damages. The fact
that Sisler has agreed, as part of the settlement, to forego money damages and to seek
only a declaratory judgment as to whether his fraudulent inducement allegations are “true
and correct” is beside the point. Damages are an essential element to a fraud claim. See
Irving v. School Dist. No. 1-1A,
(1991) (citation
omitted). Moreover, Sisler has conceded that the District Court’s decision granting
summary judgment was correct.
¶6 Under these circumstances, we have determined to decide this case pursuant to
Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003,
which provides for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the
3
record before us that the appeal is without merit because the court’s findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence, and because the legal issues are clearly controlled by
settled Montana law which the District Court correctly interpreted.
¶7 Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s Opinion and Order on Motion for
Summary Judgment.
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
We Concur:
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
4
