The Montana Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling in the case of Hudson Revocable Trust v. Freedom Pass, DA 25-0714, impacting the Johnson family and their claims regarding membership interests in a limited liability company. The court's decision on September 8, 2026, allows the Johnsons to continue their legal battle concerning the estate of Carol Hudson.
This case revolves around the ownership of a parcel of undeveloped property near Big Sky, Montana, which was purchased by Freedom Pass Partners, LLC in 2016. The Johnsons, who are the sons of Carol Hudson and beneficiaries of her estate, argued that their mother had an interest in Freedom Pass based on her financial contributions to the property. The lower court had previously ruled against the Johnsons, stating that their claims were time-barred and that they lacked standing to sue.
The dispute began when Freedom Pass filed its Articles of Organization, which did not include Hudson as a member. The Johnsons claimed that their mother was misled by Doug Nail, a member of Freedom Pass and Hudson's common-law spouse, into believing she held a membership interest in the company. The Johnsons filed their complaint in July 2021, seeking a declaration of Hudson's membership interest, but the district court ruled in favor of Freedom Pass, stating that the Johnsons did not have standing and their claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
In its ruling, the Montana Supreme Court addressed several key issues raised by the Johnsons. The court examined whether the Johnsons provided sufficient evidence to challenge the lower court's summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The Johnsons argued that Hudson was unaware of her lack of membership due to misleading information from Nail. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Hudson was aware of her membership status and whether Freedom Pass had concealed that information.
The court stated, “Where material factual questions exist as to whether the facts constituting the claim were concealed or self-concealing, whether the defendant acted to prevent discovery of those facts, or whether the plaintiff exercised due diligence, those questions must be resolved by the trier of fact.” This ruling indicates that the Johnsons may have grounds to continue their claims in court.
Additionally, the court reviewed the lower court's decision to deny the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint. The Johnsons sought to add Hudson's estate as a plaintiff, but the district court ruled that any amendment would be futile due to the time-barred nature of their claims. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the Johnsons should have the opportunity to present their case with the estate included.
Justice Beth Baker delivered the opinion of the court, which reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The ruling allows the Johnsons to pursue their claims regarding Hudson's alleged membership in Freedom Pass and the ownership of the property.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the Johnson family, as it allows them to continue their legal fight over their mother's estate and the property in question. The decision also highlights the importance of fiduciary duties and the responsibilities of individuals in positions of trust, particularly in cases involving family estates.
Moving forward, the Johnsons will have the opportunity to present their case in court, potentially leading to a trial where the facts surrounding Hudson's membership in Freedom Pass can be fully examined. The ruling sets a precedent for how courts may handle cases involving claims of concealed information and the statute of limitations in similar disputes.
As of now, it is unclear whether Freedom Pass will seek to appeal the Montana Supreme Court's decision. The case will likely proceed in the lower court, where the Johnsons can further argue their claims regarding their mother's estate and the property in question.