Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment in Montana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment

“A motion for reconsideration does not exist under Montana law. A motion for reconsideration is not one of the post-judgment motions provided for, or authorized by, the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure." (See Berberet v. Signature Flight Support Corp. (2020) MT 11; Horton v. Horton (2007)338 Mont. 236, 238.)

“A motion for reconsideration has no effect unless the court equates it to another type of motion which is allowed under the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.” (See id.)

“M. R. Civ. P. 59(e) contemplates motions to alter or amend judgments in the interests of justice but specifies no particular grounds for relief.” (See Folsom v. Mont. Pub. Employees' Ass'n, Inc. (2017) 388 Mont. 307, 331; Lee v. USAA Casualty Insurance (2001) 304 Mont. 356, 374.)

“We have held, however, that Rule 59(e) relief is not available to relitigate previously litigated matters, reconsider arguments previously made, or raise new arguments which could, and should, have been previously made.” (See id.)

“Rule 59(e) relief is available in the discretion of the court only in extraordinary circumstances such as to:

1. correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment was based;
2. raise newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;
3. prevent manifest injustice resulting from, among other things, serious misconduct of counsel; or
4. bring to the court's attention an intervening change in controlling law."

(See id; Odom v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon (2020) 399 Mont. 552; Nelson v. Driscoll (1997) 285 Mont. 355, 360.)

Rules to Alter or Amend a Judgment

Rule 59 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure governs altering or amending a judgment.

“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 59(e).)

“If the court does not address in a written order a motion for a new trial properly filed according to Rule 59(b), or a motion to alter or amend a judgment properly filed according to Rule 59(e), within 60 days from its filing date, the motion must be deemed denied. If the court issues an order within the 60 days extending the time within which to rule on the motion, the time for ruling may be extended, but if the motion is not ruled upon within 120 days from its filing date, it will be deemed denied.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 59(f).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment

“We review a district court's denial of a Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., motion to amend for abuse of discretion.” (See Lee v. USAA Casualty Insurance (2001) 304 Mont. 356, 362; Joseph Eve & Co. v. Allen (1998) 290 Mont. 175, 180.)

“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” (See id; Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Electric Co-op (1998) 292 Mont. 118, 121.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment

It is well settled that a court will “not equate a motion for reconsideration to a motion under Rule 59(g) to alter or amend judgment unless the substance of the motion constructively requests the court to alter or amend the judgment." (See Horton v. Horton (2007) 338 Mont. 236, 238; Haugen v. Blaine Bank of Montana (1996) 279 Mont. 1, 11.)

It is also well settled that “a motion to alter or amend a court's judgment may not be used to raise arguments that could have been raised prior to judgment.” (See In re Labeau (2015) 353 P.3d 508.)