Marriage of Strecker

11] ORIGINAL 02/20/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0469

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0469 FLED IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: FEB 2 0 2024 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court LISA MARIE STRECKER, State of Montana

Petitioner and Appellee, ORDER and BRADLEY JOHN STRECKER, Respondent and Appellant.

Appellant Bradley John Strecker seeks relief from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court's December 1, 2023 order denying his motion for a stay ofjudgment pending appeal unless he first posted a supersedeas bond. The order provided that if Bradley posted a bond, he could renew his motion for stay. "If Respondent elects not to post a bond within ten (10) business days of the date of this Order, a stay will not be granted." Bradley filed his motion with this Court on February 5, 2024. He represents that he attempted to obtain a bond, but that neither of the two Billings bonding companies he contacted would issue a bond. Given the nature of this farm and ranch divorce case, he says, "no idea of the extent of the bond amount could be estimated." As the District Court did not state an amount for a required bond, Bradley claims that he was unable to comply.

Appellee Lisa Marie Strecker opposes the motion, pointing out that Bradley's request is untimely and lacks a required affidavit. She asserts further that the motion lacks merit and requests that it be denied.

M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a) provides in relevant part that "a motion for relief from [a] district court order [granting or denying a stay pending appeal] may be filed in the supreme court within 11 days of the date of entry of the district court order." The motion must, among other things, "[d]emonstrate good cause for the relief requested, supported by affidavit." Subsection (4) of the same rule provides: "Except in extraordinary circumstances supported by affidavit, motions under this rule which have not been filed in accordance with sections (1) and (2)(a) of this rule . . . will be denied summarily." Bradley filed his motion for stay two months after the District Court's order. Though the motion makes various representations about his attempt to secure a bond, he provided no affidavit. The motion accordingly fails to meet the requirements of M. R. App. P. 22(2).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for relief from the District Court's post-judgment order denying a stay pending this appeal is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record. ‘1"-- Dated this eCi day of February, 2024.

,,Siott,SaChief Justice

-Pec s,„„ic(il„, oe_g_ Justices