Defining Supervisory Control: Limits and Criteria in Montana Appellate Procedure

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Montana’s Order in Jing v. 13^th Judicial District Court, OP 25-0345 (Jun. 3, 2025). Petitioners Jenny Jing, Alice Carpenter, and Mike Bolenbaugh sought a writ of supervisory control or other extraordinary relief from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, challenging various probate and intervention rulings. They raised four issues concerning fiduciary duty, First Amendment rights to intervene, due process in fact-finding, and the adequacy of appeal as a remedy. The Court denied the petition, setting forth guiding principles on when supervisory control is appropriate and cautioning against meritless, repetitive filings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Montana concluded:

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for cases presenting purely legal questions and emergency factors that make appeal inadequate (M. R. App. P. 14(3); Stokes v. 13^th Judicial Dist. Ct., 2011 MT 182).
Petitioners failed to demonstrate purely legal issues or any urgent circumstance that would render an appeal insufficient.
The arguments raised had been litigated repeatedly over six years; no new constitutional questions of statewide importance were presented.
The Court denied the writ, dismissed the petition, denied oral argument as moot, and closed the matter.
The Court warned that further meritless or procedurally improper petitions may trigger a vexatious-litigant designation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on several authorities:

Stokes v. Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court (2011 MT 182, ¶ 5): Defined supervisory control as an extraordinary remedy and outlined the requirement for purely legal questions and urgency.
M. R. App. P. 14(3): Specifies that an original proceeding may issue only when ordinary appeal is inadequate and one of three criteria is met (mistake of law, statewide constitutional issue, or emergency).
Prior “Elliot” decisions:
- Elliot I (In Re Estate of Ada Elliot, No. DA 21-0343, 2022 MT 91N): Addressed intervention and pro se representation limits.
- Elliot II (Order, May 10, 2022): Denied substitution of pro se intervenors for a decedent’s estate.
- Elliot III (Estate of Ian Ray Elliot, No. DA 23-0031, 2023 MT 246N): Reviewed Rule 42 and 60 motions and refused to declare a vexatious litigant prematurely.
- Elliot IV & V (OP 23-0610 & OP 23-0642): Denied mandamus/prohibition petitions for incomplete pleadings and failure to state statutory grounds.

These authorities established both the procedural context of the Petitioners’ ongoing litigation and the strict threshold for invoking supervisory control.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s decision rests on two pillars:

Extraordinary Nature of Supervisory Control: Supervisory control is not a substitute for appeal. Under M. R. App. P. 14(3), a petitioner must demonstrate:
- Purely legal questions that do not depend on factual development.
- Urgent or emergency circumstances making an appeal inadequate.
- One of three criteria: mistake of law causing gross injustice; constitutional issue of statewide importance; or other recognized exigency.
Inadequate Grounds and Repetitive Litigation: The Petitioners rehashed four issues previously decided or pending in appeal (DA 24-0678) without presenting new facts or novel legal questions. Their six-year history of identical claims indicated that an appeal—with a full record and briefs—was the proper vehicle. The Court emphasized that original proceedings are available only when no timely appeal could have been taken (M. R. App. P. 6(a), 14(3)).

Because the Petitioners neither met the “purely legal” standard nor showed any exceptional circumstance, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the writ petition.

Impact

This Order clarifies and reinforces several principles in Montana appellate practice:

Litigants must timely appeal final orders rather than seek supervisory control as a second resort.
Requests for extraordinary relief will be denied if they simply re-litigate issues already presented or pending on appeal.
Counsel and pro se parties should ensure compliance with appellate rules, particularly regarding substitution of parties and pleadings’ completeness.
The Court will consider vexatious-litigant designation for parties who persist in filing meritless, duplicative petitions.

Future litigants will be guided by these boundaries, preserving supervisory control for truly exceptional cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervisory Control: An extraordinary writ allowing the Supreme Court to command a lower court to correct a legal error before final judgment. It is limited to pure questions of law and urgent cases.
Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition: Orders directing a lower court or official to perform (mandamus) or refrain from (prohibition) certain actions, also extraordinary remedies.
M. R. Civ. P. 24, 59, 60: Rules governing intervention (24), new trials (59), and relief from judgment (60). The Petitioners’ motions under these rules were denied below.
Vexatious Litigant: A party who repeatedly files frivolous or harassing lawsuits. Courts may impose restrictions to prevent abuse of process.
Appeal vs. Original Proceeding: An appeal reviews lower-court errors after final judgment; an original proceeding (writ) addresses urgent legal errors before finality, but only in narrow circumstances.

Conclusion

Jing v. 13^th Judicial District Court reaffirms that supervisory control in Montana is reserved for extraordinary circumstances: purely legal questions and urgent need when appeal is inadequate. The Petitioners’ failure to meet these criteria—and their lengthy history of repetitive filings—led to denial of relief. This decision underscores the importance of timely appeals, compliance with procedural rules, and respect for the limited scope of extraordinary writs. Future litigants should heed these guidelines to avoid dismissals and potential vexatious-litigant designations.