• Home
  • Current Issue
  • Category Search
    • Arbitration
    • DLI Hearings Bureau
    • Federal Trial Courts
    • Justice Courts
    • Ninth Circuit Court
    • State Trial Courts
    • Supreme Court – Civil
    • Supreme Court – Criminal
    • US Supreme Court
    • Bankruptcy Court
    • Workers’ Compensation Court
    • Board of Personnel Appeals
    • Human Rights
  • Indexes
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index – 2025
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index – 2024
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2023
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2022
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2021
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2020
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2019
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2018
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2017
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2016
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2015
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2014
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2013
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2012
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2011
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index – 2010
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2009
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index – 2008
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2007
    • Montana Law Week Subject Index- 2006
  • Subscribe

Montana Law Week

The Weekly Digest of Montana Law

$1,733,887.40 verdict, basement dewatering

September 5, 2015 By lilly

VERDICT: $233,887.40 compensatory, $1.5 million punitives, negligent design or installation of dewatering system in home with basement below water table… principal liable for judgment for fraudulent transfer of assets. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Past Issues, State Trial Courts Tagged With: David LeGare, Eric Nord, Leonard Smith, Patricia Peterman, Scott Green

Trust, claim/issue preclusion, judicial estoppel

August 2, 2014 By lilly

TRUST: All but 2 ranch trust claims properly disposed of by claim preclusion, judicial estoppel, issue preclusion, statute of limitations… Day affirmed, Cybulski affirmed, reversed. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Past Issues, Supreme Court - Civil Tagged With: Christopher Stoneback, David Sulzbacher, John Christensen, Leonard Smith, Thomas Towe, Yvette Lafrentz

Negligence, favored/disfavored driver

January 5, 2013 By lilly

NEGLIGENCE: Dispute as to whether favored driver in uncontrolled intersection maintained adequate lookout raises comparative negligence, precludes summary judgment for favored driver… Wheelis reversed. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Past Issues, Supreme Court - Civil Tagged With: James Moore, Leonard Smith

$176,242, disability discrimination, veteran PTSD

July 21, 2012 By lilly

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: $176,242, Iraq veteran with PTSD… separate fees/costs settlement… Terry Spear. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Human Rights, Past Issues Tagged With: Christopher Stoneback, Leonard Smith, Michele Braukmann, Ross McLinden

Insurance, altercation with Patrolman, intentional

July 16, 2011 By Frank

INSURANCE: Insured’s conduct in altercation with Patrolman intentional as determined in bench trial, coverage of suit by [Read more…]

Filed Under: Past Issues, Supreme Court - Civil Tagged With: John Heenan, Leonard Smith, Trenton Hooper

Medical malpractice/Hill-Burton

March 6, 2010 By Frank

 

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/HILL-BURTON: Med-mal claim dismissed for failure to exhaust Panel… Hill-Burton claim dismissed for failing to allege discrimination by clinic… Cebull affirmed (unpublished). [Read more…]

Filed Under: Ninth Circuit Court, Past Issues Tagged With: Leonard Smith, Sam Jones

Negligence, new school blinding trial, new evidence

May 23, 2009 By lilly

NEGLIGENCE: New trial following defense verdict on gym student blinding warranted by new evidence as to teacher’s whereabouts… hearsay attorney affidavit admissible as trustworthy statement of court officer… fees/costs properly denied for defense counsel’s alleged [Read more…]

Filed Under: Past Issues, Supreme Court - Civil Tagged With: Christopher Stoneback, Elizabeth Halverson, Herbert Pierce, James Halverson, Leonard Smith

Wrongful discharge, legitimate business reasons

April 4, 2009 By lilly

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE: Jury properly instructed on legitimate business reasons for discharge… $252,428+ verdict affirmed… Fagg affirmed (IOR I-3(d)(v)). [Read more…]

Filed Under: Past Issues, Supreme Court - Civil Tagged With: Christopher Stoneback, Kenneth Peterson, Leonard Smith

Credit card, “bill stuffer” arbitration notice

March 21, 2009 By lilly

CREDIT CARD: Insufficient notice in “bill stuffer” arbitration clause, amendment void… Lympus reversed.

Santana Kortum-Managhan opened a credit card account with Herbergers in 10/98 after an employee asked if she wanted to save 10% on her purchase by filling out an application. The application did not include terms, and Kortum-Managhan claims she never signed any agreement that included terms. She received her card issued by National Bank of the Great Lakes and a Revolving Credit Card Agreement which did not include an arbitration clause but provided that Herbergers could unilaterally change terms including the interest rate and that continued use of the card constituted agreement to a change. Kortum-Managhan sued Herbergers in 9/04 alleging violations of the FDCPA and UTP/CPA for inaccurately reporting to credit bureaus that she had several accounts with Herbergers and its affiliates which impacted her credit score and impeded her application to the Montana Bar. Herbergers moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, alleging that it had mailed a “bill stuffer” in 10/99 with changes in the agreement including a binding arbitration provision to which she agreed through continued use of her account. Kortum-Managhan contended that she either did not receive the change in terms or did not notice it “because Herbergers is continually stuffing her monthly billing statement with copious piles of junk mail” that she routinely tosses. Judge Lympus granted Herbergers’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed, concluding that Kortum-Managhan’s continued use of her account after Herbergers notified her of the change constituted an agreement to arbitrate and jury waiver. Kortum-Managhan appeals.

Lympus erred in compelling arbitration and dismissing. The “bill stuffer” is ambiguous and misleading because it seeks to waive the cardholder’s constitutional rights with a clause blended into the end of a document when bold type, capital letters, and larger fonts are used to draw attention to other clauses. We agree with Kortum-Managhan that Herbergers attempted to lull her into waiving her rights and that attempting to change terms of a contract through a “bill stuffer” is “sneaky and unfair.” Badie (Cal. 1998) stated:

the language of the “bill stuffer,” as well as the method used to disseminate it, suggests that it was designed to downplay the true significance of the [arbitration provision], and to reduce the likelihood that customers would notice and object to the new provision.

Herbergers cites cases from other jurisdictions. However, only Marsh (ND Tex. 2000) is factually similar, and although the notice which included the arbitration agreement was sent as a “bill stuffer,” First USA submitted ample unrefuted evidence that there was very little chance the consumer would not have received the information or would not have noticed it.Herrington (SD Miss. 2000) states that the consumer was mailed a letter along with the revised agreement. In Goetsch (WDNC 2000), Hill (7th Cir. 1997), and Stiles (MD Ala. 1998) the consumers admitted receiving the arbitration change. Making a change in a credit agreement in a “bill stuffer” does not provide sufficient notice on which acceptance of the change can be expressly or implicitly found. Herbergers’ unilateral attempt to amend its cardholder agreement to include an arbitration clause was ineffective.

Nelson, Warner, Cotter, Leaphart, Morris.

Rice dissented: “This case serves as a reminder that people should read their mail — especially when it comes from their credit card companies.” Hutcherson (Ill. 2003).

Kortum-Managhan entered an agreement with a unilateral change procedure, Herbergers acted according to this provision, and Kortum-Managhan failed to read the notice and continued to accept benefits of the agreement by using the card. She did not establish that the change was beyond her expectations or unconscionable.

Kortum-Managhan v. Herbergers, DA 06-566, last brief 12/18/06, decided 3/17/09.

William Managhan (Managhan & Kortum-Managhan Law Firm), Kalispell, for Kortum-Managhan; Kimberly More, Kalispell, and Leonard Smith, Billings (Crowley Fleck), for Herbergers.

Filed Under: Past Issues, Supreme Court - Civil Tagged With: Kimberly More, Leonard Smith, William Managhan

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2

Login Status

Search This Website

Archives

  • ►2026
    • ▼October (15)
      • Ballot issues, SB 93 initiative/referendum restrictions
      • Mental commitment, professional's hearsay testimony
      • Mental commitment, hearsay in professional's testimony
      • Marital, move to Nebraska with special needs child
      • Supervisory control, Justice Court recording
      • Felony murder/tampering, directed verdict denial
      • Theft by deception/deceptive practices, builder/roofer
      • Plea withdrawal, plea agreement breach, timeliness
      • Speedy trial, 630 days pretrial incarceration, reversed
      • Collateral estoppel, storage units dispute
      • Marital, home/business valuation, inheritance
      • Order of protection, stalking ex-girlfriend
      • Elections, preliminary injunction of ballot issue stayed
      • Supervisory control, denial of TOP for children
      • Defamation claim against outdoor sports Instagramer
    • ►September (23)
    • ►August (43)
    • ►July (41)
    • ►June (29)
    • ►May (26)
    • ►April (29)
    • ►March (39)
    • ►February (43)
    • ►January (57)
  • ►2025
    • ►August (48)
    • ►July (40)
    • ►June (30)
    • ►May (42)
    • ►April (27)
    • ►March (43)
    • ►February (35)
    • ►January (32)
  • ►2024
    • ►December (41)
    • ►November (36)
    • ►October (24)
    • ►September (38)
    • ►August (44)
    • ►July (34)
    • ►June (47)
    • ►May (36)
    • ►April (33)
    • ►March (44)
    • ►February (32)
    • ►January (35)
  • ►2023
    • ►December (35)
    • ►November (35)
    • ►October (28)
    • ►September (36)
    • ►August (27)
    • ►July (40)
    • ►June (38)
    • ►May (40)
    • ►April (26)
    • ►March (29)
    • ►February (28)
    • ►January (23)
  • ►2022
    • ►December (39)
    • ►November (36)
    • ►October (41)
    • ►September (20)
    • ►August (30)
    • ►July (40)
    • ►June (28)
    • ►May (27)
    • ►April (28)
    • ►March (34)
    • ►February (31)
    • ►January (52)
  • ►2021
    • ►December (37)
    • ►November (37)
    • ►October (48)
    • ►September (37)
    • ►August (49)
    • ►July (43)
    • ►June (30)
    • ►May (52)
    • ►April (46)
    • ►March (39)
    • ►February (40)
    • ►January (16)
  • ►2020
    • ►December (36)
    • ►November (41)
    • ►October (43)
    • ►September (37)
    • ►August (46)
    • ►July (37)
    • ►June (41)
    • ►May (57)
    • ►April (39)
    • ►March (33)
    • ►February (41)
    • ►January (34)
  • ►2019
    • ►December (28)
    • ►November (43)
    • ►October (22)
    • ►September (42)
    • ►August (45)
    • ►July (31)
    • ►June (44)
    • ►May (37)
    • ►April (36)
    • ►March (46)
    • ►February (41)
    • ►January (30)
  • ►2018
    • ►December (52)
    • ►November (38)
    • ►October (30)
    • ►September (48)
    • ►August (38)
    • ►July (36)
    • ►June (48)
    • ►May (43)
    • ►April (48)
    • ►March (55)
    • ►February (44)
    • ►January (46)
  • ►2017
    • ►December (46)
    • ►November (42)
    • ►October (37)
    • ►September (51)
    • ►August (35)
    • ►July (56)
    • ►June (51)
    • ►May (49)
    • ►April (59)
    • ►March (39)
    • ►February (39)
    • ►January (41)
  • ►2016
    • ►December (51)
    • ►November (44)
    • ►October (53)
    • ►September (39)
    • ►August (36)
    • ►July (55)
    • ►June (38)
    • ►May (37)
    • ►April (55)
    • ►March (37)
    • ►February (29)
    • ►January (51)
  • ►2015
    • ►December (34)
    • ►November (33)
    • ►October (59)
    • ►September (43)
    • ►August (46)
    • ►July (44)
    • ►June (54)
    • ►May (58)
    • ►April (53)
    • ►March (43)
    • ►February (41)
    • ►January (47)
  • ►2014
    • ►December (45)
    • ►November (45)
    • ►October (42)
    • ►September (43)
    • ►August (56)
    • ►July (43)
    • ►June (54)
    • ►May (56)
    • ►April (57)
    • ►March (56)
    • ►February (48)
    • ►January (38)
  • ►2013
    • ►December (40)
    • ►November (52)
    • ►October (38)
    • ►September (46)
    • ►August (63)
    • ►July (47)
    • ►June (73)
    • ►May (43)
    • ►April (47)
    • ►March (69)
    • ►February (41)
    • ►January (36)
  • ►2012
    • ►December (49)
    • ►November (39)
    • ►October (46)
    • ►September (53)
    • ►August (51)
    • ►July (42)
    • ►June (52)
    • ►May (48)
    • ►April (44)
    • ►March (47)
    • ►February (37)
    • ►January (52)
  • ►2011
    • ►December (73)
    • ►November (71)
    • ►October (51)
    • ►September (35)
    • ►August (42)
    • ►July (62)
    • ►June (51)
    • ►May (38)
    • ►April (61)
    • ►March (44)
    • ►February (55)
    • ►January (64)
  • ►2010
    • ►December (45)
    • ►November (51)
    • ►October (65)
    • ►September (52)
    • ►August (37)
    • ►July (70)
    • ►June (45)
    • ►May (61)
    • ►April (52)
    • ►March (66)
    • ►February (51)
    • ►January (62)
  • ►2009
    • ►September (55)
    • ►August (60)
    • ►July (51)
    • ►June (32)
    • ►May (87)
    • ►April (56)
    • ►March (57)
    • ►February (55)
    • ►January (62)

Archives Dropdown

© Copyright 2026 Montana Law Week. All Rights Reserved.

Website, hosting, and design provided by JHW Development