HomeRiver v. Anders Business Solutions: Reaffirming the Strict Majority-Member Exception for LLC Self-Representation in Montana Justice Courts

Supreme Court of Montana – 2025 MT 154N
Appeal No. DA 24-0531 | Date: 15 July 2025

Introduction

HomeRiver Group (“HomeRiver”) initiated an unlawful-detainer action in Missoula County Justice Court to recover possession of commercial premises occupied by Anders Business Solutions, LLC (“ABS”). After an individual, Kris Hawkins, attempted to appear for ABS without being a licensed attorney, the Justice Court struck her filings, entered default, and granted HomeRiver immediate possession. ABS appealed to the District Court and, eventually, to the Montana Supreme Court.

The core controversy centres on whether a non-lawyer may represent an LLC in Justice Court under Montana’s statutory “majority-member” exception and, if so, what evidentiary showing is required. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, holding that:

A non-attorney must conclusively demonstrate majority membership in the LLC to invoke the exception.
Failure to file a valid appearance within ten days of service in an unlawful-detainer case mandates entry of default under § 70-27-117, MCA.
Posting an undertaking after execution of a writ of assistance cannot resurrect possession where the default and writ were properly issued.

Summary of the Judgment

Delivering a non-precedential memorandum opinion, Justice Beth Baker—on behalf of a unanimous Court— upheld:

The Justice Court’s order striking Hawkins’s filings for lack of authority;
The entry of default and order for possession in favour of HomeRiver; and
The District Court’s intermediate affirmance of those rulings.

The Court reiterated that a non-lawyer may appear for an LLC in Justice Court only if the person is a “member with a majority interest” and the LLC’s governing documents do not prohibit such representation (§§ 25-31-601(3) & 35-8-301(5), MCA). Hawkins produced no documentation demonstrating majority membership; therefore, she lacked standing to file pleadings on ABS’s behalf. Because no proper answer was filed within ten days, the Justice Court was statutorily bound to enter default.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Sagorin v. Sunrise Heating & Cooling, LLC, 2022 MT 58 – Restated the general rule that entities must appear through counsel, noting the narrow majority-member exception for Justice/Small Claims Courts.
State v. Thibeault, 2021 MT 162 – Clarified the scope of appellate review from a Justice Court of Record: questions of law only.
Stanley v. Lemire, 2006 MT 304 – Set the standard for the Supreme Court’s independent review when a District Court acts as an intermediate appellate court.
CBM Collections, Inc. v. Ferreira, 2005 MT 170 – Confirmed that Justice Courts follow the Montana Justice & City Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
Miscellaneous references to procedural rules (Uniform Municipal Court Rules of Appeal, M.J.C.C.R.Civ.P. 22A) and statutory provisions governing unlawful detainer and undertakings.

B. Legal Reasoning

Authority to Represent. The Court parsed §§ 35-8-102, ‑301(5), and 25-31-601(3), MCA, distinguishing “manager” from “member.” Because Hawkins’s exhibits showed Anderson Trust merely as manager, not member, she failed to meet the statutory threshold. Her self-serving declaration was insufficient without corroborating documents (trust agreement, membership ledger, or amended articles).
Mandatory Default. Under § 70-27-117, MCA, if a defendant in an unlawful-detainer action fails to answer within ten days, “the court shall enter default.” Once Hawkins’s filings were stricken, the clock reset, and ABS still did not answer by the extended deadline (May 10). The Justice Court therefore had no discretion.
Due Process Considerations. The Justice Court provided multiple notices and opportunities (April 19, April 30, May 8) before defaulting ABS, satisfying the constitutional requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard.
Undertaking and Stay. Even if ABS posted the $8,800 undertaking after the writ issued, the Court found the stay issue moot: the merits were resolved adversely to ABS, leaving no effective relief.
Collateral Issues. Allegations regarding lease validity, party naming, or jurisdiction were deemed waived or unsupported because they appeared solely in stricken pleadings.

C. Impact of the Judgment

Although labelled “non-citable,” the decision underscores (and thus likely guides practitioners on) several practical points:

Documentation Burden. Non-lawyers invoking the majority-member exception must supply concrete evidence of membership interest (operating agreement, trust certificate, amended articles, etc.). Bare declarations are insufficient.
Strict Timelines in Unlawful Detainer. The ten-day answer period is unforgiving. A litigant experimenting with pro se entity representation risks immediate loss of possession.
Professional Counsel Advised. The opinion functions as a cautionary tale—delay in retaining licensed counsel may prove fatal, especially in summary-eviction contexts.
Undertakings Must Precede Execution. Posting bond after the writ issues may not unwind possession; litigants must act promptly at the Justice Court level.
Future Litigation Strategy. Even without precedential force, district judges, practitioners, and unrepresented LLC members will likely treat the Court’s reasoning as persuasive authority for evidentiary and procedural rigor.

Complex Concepts Simplified

LLC Majority-Member Exception: A narrow statutory carve-out allowing a person who owns more than 50 % of an LLC to appear in Justice or Small Claims Court without a lawyer, provided the articles/operating agreement do not forbid it.
Unlawful Detainer: A summary eviction action enabling a landlord (or in this case a property manager) to regain possession rapidly when a tenant refuses to vacate.
Default Judgment: A binding court decision entered when a party fails to plead or otherwise defend within the time set by law.
Writ of Assistance: A court order directing law enforcement to place the prevailing party in possession of property.
Undertaking: A bond filed by an appellant to secure compliance with a judgment (here, the amount of rent or damages) while an appeal is pending.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s memorandum opinion in HomeRiver v. Anders Business Solutions offers a stringent reminder: Montana’s courts will strictly enforce the formal requirements governing entity representation and statutory timelines in expedited eviction proceedings. Failing to provide indisputable proof of majority membership—before filing pleadings—will result in the striking of filings and, potentially, irreversible default. For landlords and property managers, the ruling confirms the efficacy of Montana’s unlawful-detainer framework; for LLC tenants, it highlights the peril of informal, non-attorney advocacy. While the opinion is officially non-precedential, its clear application of existing statutes will undoubtedly shape day-to-day litigation practice in the state’s Justice Courts.