360 Reclaim v. Russell

06/03/2025 DA 24-0610 Case Number: DA 24-0610 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2025 MT 117N 360 RECLAIM, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM M. RUSSELL, an individual, and MOUNTAIN VIEW INVESTMENTS, L.C., an Idaho limited liability company, Defendants and Appellees, v. WILLIAM M. RUSSELL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. 360 RECLAIM, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM M. RUSSELL, Counter-Defendant and Appellee, and U.S. TREASURY by and through the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Third-Party Defendants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-19-305(A) Honorable Amy Eddy, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Kristin L. Omvig, Benjamin J. Hammer, Omvig Hammer Law, P.C., Kalispell, Montana For Appellee William M. Russell: William M. Russell, Self-Represented, Pocatello, Idaho For Appellee Mountain View Investments, L.C.: Nicholas J. Lofing, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 9, 2025 Decided: June 3, 2025 Filed: ,,.._...6.--if __________________________________________ Clerk 2 Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 360 Reclaim, LLC, (360 Reclaim) appeals the Eleventh Judicial District Court’s, Flathead County, October 1, 2024 Order and Rationale on Remand and on Various Motions that granted Mountain View Investments, L.C.’s (MVI) request for summary judgment, finding William Russell had sufficiently redeemed his property after certain credits were applied to the redemption price. We affirm. ¶3 Russell owned a 20-acre parcel of land near Columbia Falls, Montana. Russell defaulted on loan payments, and 360 Reclaim purchased the property at a foreclosure auction on June 1, 2018. The ensuing events have led to multiple proceedings before this Court. See KS Ventures, LLC v. Russell, No. DA 18-0238, 2019 MT 4N, 2019 Mont. LEXIS 8 (KS Ventures); Russell v. 360 Reclaim, LLC, No. DA 18-0677, 2019 MT 178N, 2019 Mont. LEXIS 285 (Russell I); 360 Reclaim, LLC v. Russell, No. DA 19-0450, 2020 MT 136N, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 1533 (Russell II); 360 Reclaim, LLC v. Russell, 2023 MT 250, 414 Mont. 328, 540 P.3d 1046 (Russell III). ¶4 On June 3, 2019, Russell attempted to redeem the property by tendering $117,000 to 360 Reclaim through lender MVI. Russell calculated the price by including $100,000 for the purchase price, one year’s interest at 7.5% of $7,500, taxes of $7,243.58, and an 3 added safety margin of $2,256.42. 360 Reclaim disputed this amount. Subsequently, a legal battle ensued in which the issue focused on whether 360 Reclaim could claim cleanup costs as “maintenance expenditures” under § 25-13-802, MCA, as part of the redemption value. 360 Reclaim removed some scrap metal from the property as part of its cleanup and wished to add the cost of cleanup to the redemption price. Ultimately, the District Court found a redemption value of $119,480.51, not including the cleanup costs. The District Court determined cleanup costs could be included in the redemption price as maintenance expenditures, and therefore Russell’s payment was not sufficient to redeem the property. A more detailed explanation of the underlying facts and history between the parties can be found in Russell III, ¶¶ 1-12. ¶5 Russell appealed, and this Court reversed and remanded back to the District Court. We held maintenance expenditures must be for maintenance of the real property, not maintenance of the redemptioner’s personal property located on the real property. Russell III, ¶ 17. We found 360 Reclaim could not pursue cleanup costs of personal property as part of the redemption price. We remanded for determination of what credits, if any, Russell was entitled to against the redemption price and if Russell’s