Bank claim in Montana

2008She maintains that the District Court’s reliance on the exception carved out in First State Bank of Forsyth v. Chunkapura, 226 Mont. 54 , 734 P.2d 1203 (1987), for allowing deficiency judgments in commercial settings, is misplaced because, during the entire life of the loan, the property was used solely as a residence for Kyle and her family. ¶24 As support for her contentions, Kyle notes in her brief that the original owner of the Horse Butte Estates (the property at issue here) filed covenants with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office on March 9,1971, and again on September 4,1975

2008She maintains that the District Court’s reliance on the exception carved out in First State Bank of Forsyth v. Chunkapura, 226 Mont. 54 , 734 P.2d 1203 (1987), for allowing deficiency judgments in commercial settings, is misplaced because, during the entire life of the loan, the property was used solely as a residence for Kyle and her family. ¶24 As support for her contentions, Kyle notes in her brief that the original owner of the Horse Butte Estates (the property at issue here) filed covenants with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office on March 9,1971, and again on September 4,1975

2006DISCUSSION ¶12 Did the District Court err in granting the Bank’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing? ¶13 The McCoys argued to the District Court that the Bank breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it refused to allow them to cancel their cattle sale and refused to lend them the additional funds necessary to care for the cattle until the sale could be rescheduled. 1 Relying on Story v. City of Bozeman, 242 Mont. 436 , 791 P.2d 767 (1990), McCoys asserted that to prevail on a contract-based breach, they need only

2006DISCUSSION ¶12 Did the District Court err in granting the Bank’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing? ¶13 The McCoys argued to the District Court that the Bank breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it refused to allow them to cancel their cattle sale and refused to lend them the additional funds necessary to care for the cattle until the sale could be rescheduled. 1 Relying on Story v. City of Bozeman, 242 Mont. 436 , 791 P.2d 767 (1990), McCoys asserted that to prevail on a contract-based breach, they need only

2002Motarie v. Northern Montana Joint Refuse Disposal Dist. (1995), 274 Mont. 239, 242 , 907 P.2d 154, 156 .

2002Motarie v. Northern Montana Joint Refuse Disposal Dist. (1995), 274 Mont. 239, 242 , 907 P.2d 154, 156 .

2000The Stuarts argue that “the Court’s reliance on the McDonnell Douglas presumption, as modified by this Court in [Heiat], was misplaced.” The Stuarts urge this Court to adopt the “preponderance” standard articulated in Wright v. Southland Corp. (11th Cir. 1999), 187 F.3d 1287 . ¶19 However, the Stuarts fail to demonstrate how their proposed standard differs from the standard we adopted in Heiat .

2000DISCUSSION ISSUE 1 ¶17 Did the District Court apply the correct standard for deciding this discrimination claim? ¶18 The Stuarts contend that the District Court erred when it applied the analysis outlined in Heiat v. Eastern Montana College (1996) , 275 Mont. 322 , 912 P.2d 787 , to decide whether the Bank’s motion should be granted.

2000DISCUSSION ISSUE 1 ¶17 Did the District Court apply the correct standard for deciding this discrimination claim? ¶18 The Stuarts contend that the District Court erred when it applied the analysis outlined in Heiat v. Eastern Montana College (1996) , 275 Mont. 322 , 912 P.2d 787 , to decide whether the Bank’s motion should be granted.

1990First Bank v. Fourth Judicial District Court (1987), 226 Mont. 515 , 737 P.2d 1132 .

1990First Bank v. Fourth Judicial District Court (1987), 226 Mont. 515 , 737 P.2d 1132 .

1989The basis of a bank’s right to set off its depositor’s accounts against matured debts owed by the depositor to the bank was recently discussed by this Court in Bottrell, Reeve and Northern Line Layers, Inc. v. American Bank (f/k/a Western State Bank), Jim Beaton and Marty Derrig, [(Mont. 1988) 237 Mont. 1 , 773 P.2d 694 , 46 St.Rep. 561 ].

1989The basis of a bank’s right to set off its depositor’s accounts against matured debts owed by the depositor to the bank was recently discussed by this Court in Bottrell, Reeve and Northern Line Layers, Inc. v. American Bank (f/k/a Western State Bank), Jim Beaton and Marty Derrig, [(Mont. 1988) 237 Mont. 1 , 773 P.2d 694 , 46 St.Rep. 561 ].

1989The basis of a bank’s right to set off its depositor’s accounts against matured debts owed by the depositor to the bank was recently discussed by this Court in Bottrell, Reeve and Northern Line Layers, Inc. v. American Bank (f/k/a Western State Bank), Jim Beaton and Marty Derrig, [(Mont. 1988) 237 Mont. 1 , 773 P.2d 694 , 46 St.Rep. 561 ].

1989The basis of a bank’s right to set off its depositor’s accounts against matured debts owed by the depositor to the bank was recently discussed by this Court in Bottrell, Reeve and Northern Line Layers, Inc. v. American Bank (f/k/a Western State Bank), Jim Beaton and Marty Derrig, [(Mont. 1988) 237 Mont. 1 , 773 P.2d 694 , 46 St.Rep. 561 ].

1986In Bolz v. Myers (Mont. 1982), 200 Mont. 286 , 651 P.2d 606, 611 , 39 St.Rep. 1747 , 1752, this Court set forth the elements of interference with contract: on the part of the actor, and (4) that actual damage and loss resulted.

1986In Bolz v. Myers (Mont. 1982), 200 Mont. 286 , 651 P.2d 606, 611 , 39 St.Rep. 1747 , 1752, this Court set forth the elements of interference with contract: on the part of the actor, and (4) that actual damage and loss resulted.

1971In First National Bank of Smithfield, North Carolina v. Saxon (C.C.A. 4, 1965), 352 F.2d 267 , the United States Court of Appeals indicated that “the public interest, need and necessity” for a new bank are factors to be considered by the comptroller in determining his approval or disapproval of a branch bank application.