Cline v. Pritchard

── Cline v. Pritchard ── Court: Montana Supreme Court Date: May 19, 2026 Category: Direct Appeal 05/19/2026 DA 25-0630 Case Number: DA 25-0630 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2026 MT 108 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: LYNLEA A. CLINE, Petitioner and Appellee, and DAVID R. PRITCHARD, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DR-24-433 Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: David R. Pritchard, Self-Represented, Missoula, Montana For Appellee: Thomas H. Stanton, Wells & McKittrick, P.C., Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 15, 2026 Decided: May 19, 2026 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Katherine M. Bidegaray delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 David Pritchard appeals pro se various orders of the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court entered during dissolution proceedings involving his former wife, Lynlea Cline. We address the following restated issues: 1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Pritchard’s motions to set aside the Final Decree. 2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in awarding Cline a share of equity in the parties’ marital home. 3. Whether Cline is entitled to sanctions. Pritchard contends he lacked notice of proceedings and that the District Court’s Final Decree unlawfully awarded Cline equity in the parties’ marital home. Cline denies Pritchard’s claims and asks this Court to sanction him for a frivolous appeal. We affirm the District Court on all matters and deny Cline’s request for sanctions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Dissolution Proceedings: Default Judgment and Final Decree ¶2 After 12 years of marriage, Cline filed a dissolution petition on June 19, 2024, in the Fourth Judicial District Court, asking the court to dissolve the parties’ marriage and equitably distribute their marital property and debts if the parties were otherwise unable to agree on distribution. On June 21, 2024, the District Court issued a summons to Pritchard, ordering him to answer the petition within 21 days of service and warning: “If you fail to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the petition.” The summons included a temporary economic restraining order. A process 2 server certified personal service of the petition and summons on Pritchard at his home address in Missoula on October 31, 2024. ¶3 On December 2, 2024, after Pritchard failed to respond or otherwise appear, Cline filed a request for entry of default, which the district court clerk issued that day. Cline’s attorney certified service of the request for and notice of entry of default on Pritchard by email. Pritchard later argued that email service was improper under M. R. Civ. P. 5 because he had not consented to electronic service. In later court filings, Pritchard included a copy of Cline’s December 3, 2024 email to him showing the request for and notice of entry of default attached. Pritchard also later referenced arguments Cline’s lawyer made “when he submitted for default” in text messages Pritchard submitted to the District Court, further indicating notice of the entry of default. Nevertheless, Pritchard still did not appear. ¶4 One week later, Cline filed a request for hearing on the uncontested dissolution matter, certifying service of the hearing request on Pritchard by