As reported above, in April 2026, Baldwin law had defeated an attempt to usurp the Montana court’s discretion with a tribal court judgment. The opposing party had appealed that decision, but the Montana Supreme Court dismissed that appeal. Scott then moved the Supreme Court to reconsider the dismissal Baldwin Law opposed that motion, and the Supreme Court agreed, refusing to revisit the issue.
Baldwin Law represents a buyer of certain motels in Missoula, Montana. The client’s prior lawyer had filed a lawsuit back in 2024. Recently, Baldwin Law asked the court for permission to amend the complaint to sue a new defendant and to assert additional claims. The defendants resisted, claiming that the whole case should be dismissed. After oral argument, the district court sided with Baldwin Law’s client, refusing to dismiss the complaint and allowing our client to file its new claims.
David and Melissa Hatter own property in Gallatin Gateway. The public had engaged in unregulated and unsafe target shooting on state land situated just across Axtell Anceney Road. The Hatters asked Baldwin Law for help to stop that unregulated and unsafe shooting for the safety of others recreating on the state land and the entire neighborhood. Baldwin Law filed a petition with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and made a presentation at the public hearing. In spite of significant comment against the closure, the DNRC sided with the Hatters, closing the land to target shooting, making this piece of state-owned property safe for the public to enjoy.
Baldwin Law represented a landowner in a dispute with the bonding company that had posted a reclamation bond concerning a gravel pit on the property. When the mining ended and the permit holder did not reclaim the land, the bonding company refused to pay for the cleanup, contending that the landowner was responsible. Baldwin Law represented the landowner and achieved a settlement resolving the issues and leading to cleanup of the land.
As reported above, in April 2026, Baldwin law had defeated an attempt to tie the hands of the Montana court by a tribal court judgment from New York. Scott then appealed that decision. Baldwin Law asked the Montana Supreme Court to dismiss Scott’s appeal as premature. Scott resisted, but the Montana Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the appeal. Once again, the Montana courts have sided with our client about the judgment from the Seneca Nation of Indians tribal court.
Spencer and Colette Melby contracted to purchase real property near Missoula for their home. The sellers, however, then decided they would rather sell to somebody else, at a slightly higher price, and terminated the Melbys’ contract. When the Melbys sued, the sellers contended that they did not have to sell to the Melbys. The trial court in Missoula rejected that argument, ruling in favor of Baldwin Law’s clients. Recently, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that the parties had an enforceable contract and that the sellers had materially breached its terms. The case goes back to the trial court, where a jury will determine how much the sellers owe to the Melbys. Melby v. Doering, 2026 MT 119, 428 Mont. 279, 590 P.3d 442.
Jesse and Tracy Guenther bought a residential lot in a small subdivision outside of Bozeman, Montana. Their neighbors sued them, contending they had a right to run irrigation water through a ditch across their land in spite of the subdivision approval process that had required abandonment of the irrigation ditch. Baldwin Law represented the Guenthers and obtained a ruling from the trial court that the neighbors had no such ditch rights and that the neighbors owed the Guenthers almost $150,000 in attorney fees. The neighbors appealed and the Montana Supreme Court recently affirmed the ruling in favor of Baldwin Law’s clients. Dolan v. Ceartin, 2026 MT 73, 427 Mont. 316, 586 P.3d 1208.
Karen Maybee and her husband, Scott, live in Montana. When Karen filed for divorce, Scott went to the Seneca Nation of Indians tribal court in New York, where he is a member, and obtained a judgment that Scott was solely entitled to various assets and income supposedly tied to the tribe, and that the Montana court could not even consider those assets in deciding how to divide the marital estate. Scott’s attorneys then asked the Montana court to honor that tribal court decree. Baldwin Law argued for Karen that the tribal court judgment did not restrict the district court’s ability to apply Montana law to Scott’s assets and income. The district court agreed that it was not bound by the tribal court judgment and would apply Montana law without the limitations Scott sought.