Opinion
OP 23-0642
11-07-2023
JENNY JING, ALICE CARPENTER, MIKE BOLENBAUGH, Petitioners, v. MONTANA THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE ROD SOUZA, PRESIDING, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioners Jenny Jing and Mike Bolenbaugh (Jing and Bolenbaugh, or Petitioners)petition this Court for a writ of prohibition, or alternatively, a writ of mandamus, over the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, and request oral argument. Jing and Bolenbaugh recently filed in this Court a petition for prohibition and mandamus over the District Court, which we dismissed in an Order entered October 24, 2023, noting that the petition contained attachments but that there was only one page of the petition beyond the introductory pages, and an argument with authorities was not provided. Jing et al. v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Ct., No. OP 23-0610, 2023 Mont. LEXIS 1056 Order (Oct. 24, 2023). Jing and Bolenbaugh have initiated this original proceeding by filing a motion for leave to file their new petition, along with the petition itself, apologizing for previously failing to file the complete petition. Given that we dismissed the petition filed in OP 23-0610 on technical grounds, we grant Jing and Bolenbaugh's motion for leave to file the petition submitted to the Court herein. The petition addresses issues arising out of or relating to the lengthy history of the subject estates, which have been subject to extensive litigation so far. Jing and Bolenbaugh refer the Court to their pending appeal in DA 23-0031 for a summary of this background of this case. They request herein that the District Court be restrained "from exceeding its jurisdiction to issue orders granting Ian['s] estate's special administrator Andrew Billstein's petitions for settlements of Ian's surviving claims pending in other courts' jurisdictions [.] They seek a writ of mandamus "ordering the Respondent Court to dismiss Billstein's petitions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction[.]" They also request "a / writ of mandamus for an investigation [of] Court Officer Joseph Womack's dishonest conducts such as concealing an audio record, charging $300 hourly attorney rate substantially for non-legal work, etc."
The petition names a third petitioner, Alice Carpenter, but Carpenter did not sign the pleadings.
See In the Matter of A.H.E., No. DA 16-0304, 2016 MT 315N, 2016 Mont. LEXIS 1002 (Nov. 29, 2016); In the Matter of the Estate of Ada Elliot, No. DA 17-0618, 2018 MT 171N, 2018 Mont. LEXIS 231 (Jul. 10, 2018); and Ian Elliot v. Womack & Elliot, No. OP 21-0473, 2021 Mont.' LEXIS 750 Order denying writ (Sept. 21, 2021). There is a pending appeal in which the case was recently classified. In re the Matter of Ian Elliot, No. DA 23-0031.
The requested writs are statutorily governed, and are narrow, specific remedies. To state a claim for mandamus, a party must show entitlement to the performance of a clear legal duty by the party against whom the writ is directed and the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Section 27-26-102, MCA; Smith v. Missoula Co., 1999 MT 330, ¶ 28, 297 Mont. 368, 992 P.2d 834. "The writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mandate. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person exercising judicial functions when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person.'' Section 27-27-101, MCA.
Upon review, Petitioners do not establish a basis for relief under these standards. While Petitioners indicate their understanding that this Court can resolve only issues of law, and not fact, their petition is replete with factual contentions underlying the requested relief. See, i.e, Petition, page 7 ("Womack dismissed the Bozeman case, then falsely reported to Hon. Judge Mary Jane Knisely, that Ada had 'NONE' property in her life time." (Emphasis added.) This Court cannot consider dismissal of an estate administrator's petitions for settlements without a proper record developed before the trial court and the process of appeal. Petitioners will have a right to appeal any such determinations made by the District Court. Neither can we conduct investigations or otherwise undertake factfinding.
This Court concludes Jing and Bolenbaugh are not entitled to a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition, or other extraordinary relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Jing's and Bolenbaugh's motion for leave to file the petition is GRANTED.
2. The Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Prohibition, or other extraordinary relief are DENIED and DISMISSED;
3. The request for oral argument is DENIED, as moot, and
4. The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to CLOSE this matter as of this Order's date.
The Clerk is also directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the Honorable Rod Souza, Thirteenth Judicial District Court; Terry Halpin, Clerk of District Court, under Cause No. DP 22-0034; counsel of record; all other parties listed; and Jenny Jing and Mike Bolenbaugh personally