Bratton v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health Sys., Inc.

399 Mont. 490

461 P.3d 127

2020 MT 86

Cheryl BRATTON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated Montanans, Appellants,

v.SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a SCL Health, Appellee.

DA 19-0357

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: February 19, 2020

Decided: April 14, 2020

For Appellants: John Heenan, Joe Cook, Heenan & Cook, PLLC, Billings, Montana, Michael P. Manning, Ritchie Manning Kautz PLLP, Billings, Montana

For Appellee: Robert C. Lukes, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, Missoula, Montana, Kathryn A. Reilly, Jessica G. Scott, Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP, Denver, Colorado

For Amici Curiae Montana Legal Services, National Consumer Law Center, and National Association of Consumer Advocates: David K. W. Wilson, Jr., Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson & Deola, PLLP, Helena, Montana, Mark Elliott Budnitz, Bobby Lee Cook, Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, Georgia

For Amici Montana Bankers Association, American Bankers Association, and Consumer Bankers Association Kenneth K. Lay, Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Helena, Montana

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Cheryl Bratton (Bratton) appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. (SCL Health or SCL) on her claims, entered by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. We affirm, and restate the issues as follows:

1. Did the District Court err by granting SCL Health’s motion for summary judgment on Bratton’s request for declaratory judgment that SCL violated § 28-1-1002, MCA ?

2. Did the District Court err by granting SCL Health’s motion for summary judgment on Bratton’s request for a constructive trust based on unjust enrichment?

3. Did the District Court err by granting SCL Health’s motion for summary judgment on Bratton’s Montana Consumer Protection Act claim?

4. Did the District Court err by granting SCL Health’s motion for summary judgment on Bratton’s "money had and received" claim?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In January of 2015, SCL Health began issuing refunds to its patients, for such reasons as overpayment on an account, in the form of prepaid MasterCard debit cards issued through Bank of America (the Patient Refund Card Program or Program). Prior to initiation of the Program, SCL had effectuated patient refunds via bank drafts or checks issued through its internal billing department. This internal process cost SCL approximately $5.00 per check, and involved delay in the issuance of refund checks to patients. SCL implemented the Program to reduce costs, as the cost of issuing prepaid debit cards was approximately $3.50 each, and to provide patients with more timely access to their refunds.

¶3 Bratton received services at a SCL Health facility in 2018, and after Bratton’s primary health insurer provided payment for those services, SCL billed Bratton for the remaining cost, which Bratton paid. Subsequently, Bratton’s secondary insurer also paid the remaining cost. Thus, SCL Health had been overpaid, and owed Bratton a refund in the amount of $12.75, for which it initiated issuance to Bratton of a Patient Refund Card from Bank of America in that amount, in June of 2018. In December of 2018, under similar circumstances, SCL Health had a second Patient Refund Card issued to Bratton, in the amount of $15, bringing the total amount refunded to Bratton through the Program to $27.75.

¶4 Under the Patient Refund Card Program, when a patient is owed a refund, SCL Health transmits the amount, name, and contact information of the patient to Bank of America. Bank of America removes the amount due to the patient from SCL Health’s depository account, creates and loads a prepaid debit card, and sends the card to the patient. For fourteen days after the money has been debited from SCL’s account, SCL may request that the money be returned to its account and the card unloaded. After fourteen days have passed, SCL can no longer reverse the card transaction.

¶5 Along with the card, Bank of America also sends a short letter, or card carrier, bearing SCL Health’s logo to the patient.¹ The letter explains that, upon activating the card, the patient may access her funds in a number of ways without incurring any fee: the patient may use the card as payment at any vendor who accepts MasterCard; may take the card to any bank that accepts MasterCard and ask for the card to be exchanged for cash; or, may withdraw the money on the card at any Allpoint ATM, including 94 locations in Montana. To activate the card, the patient need only call the Bank of America number provided in the letter and enter the last four digits of their phone number. Although, by activating the card, the patient agrees to Bank of America’s terms of service for the card, the patient is not required to open an account with Bank of America.

¶6 The letter provides customer service telephone numbers for both SCL Health and Bank of America. At any time a balance remains on the card, if the patient wishes to receive a check instead of using the card, she may request a check. Although checks may be issued even after the card is activated, a patient does not need to activate the card to request a check. In Montana, as of February 6, 2019, 194 checks were requested via this method and sent to patients for SCL Health refunds. The checks are issued without charge.

¶7 Neither SCL nor Bank of America retain unused funds associated with the Program. The Patient Refund Cards have a three-year expiration date and, after the card expires, the Patient’s money remains in the account until the balance becomes eligible for escheatment to the State of Montana after five years, in accordance with Montana’s unclaimed property statute. See § 70-9-803, MCA.

¶8 Bratton did not incur any fees associated with either of the refund cards she was issued. Bratton’s husband activated the first refund card, but the card was not used. Bratton did not activate the second card, request issuance of checks for the cards, use the cards to pay for goods, withdraw the money from the cards at an ATM, or exchange the cards for cash at a bank.

¶9 In October of 2018, Bratton brought this suit against SCL Health, alleging constructive trust, conversion, unjust enrichment, violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), money had and received, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.² During her deposition in this case, Bratton made her first request to SCL that the cards be cancelled, and that checks be issued for her refunds. Pursuant to this request, SCL asked Bank of America to issue checks to Bratton for her total refunds, which Bank of America did.

¶10 The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and after hearing, the District Court issued an order granting SCL Health’s motions for summary judgment and denying Bratton’s cross motion for summary judgment. Bratton appeals the dismissal of her claims for declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, money had and received, and unfair trade practices under the (MCPA). She does not appeal the dismissal of her conversion claim.³

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶11 This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria as the district court. Graham-Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank , N.A., 2019 MT 226, ¶ 12, 397 Mont. 262, 449 P.3d 798 (citations omitted). Therefore, "[s]ummary judgment is proper when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Sprunk v. First Bank Sys. , 252 Mont. 463, 465, 830 P.2d 103, 104 (1992) (citing M. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ). It is the moving party’s initial burden to establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Once the moving party has done so, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Sprunk , 252 Mont. at 465-66, 830 P.2d at 104. In doing so, the party opposing summary judgment " ‘must set forth specific facts and cannot rely on speculative, fanciful, or conclusory statements.’ " Sprunk , 252 Mont. at 466-67, 830 P.2d at 105 (quoting Simmons v. Jenkins , 230 Mont. 429, 432, 750 P.2d 1067, 1069 (1988) ).

DISCUSSION

¶12 1. Did the District Court err by granting SCL Health’s motion for summary judgment based on Bratton’s request for a declaratory judgment that SCL violated § 28-1-1002, MCA ?

¶13 Bratton asserts the District Court erred by denying her declaratory claim that SCL Health’s use of the Patient Refund Card Program violated § 28-1-1002, MCA. She argues SCL Health, by the Program, transferred to Bank of America its obligation to pay debt owed to her. SCL answers that use of the Program does not violate the statute because it does not transfer or otherwise discharge SCL Health’s obligation to pay Bratton. Rather, the Program is simply a financial mechanism by which SCL fulfilled its obligation to Bratton.⁴

¶14 Section 28-1-1002, MCA, part of the Field Code, provides, "[t]he burden of an obligation may be transferred with the consent of the party entitled to the benefits, but not otherwise[.]" When interpreting a statute, this Court looks first to the statute’s plain language. City of Missoula v. Fox , 2019 MT 250, ¶ 18, 397 Mont. 388, 450 P.3d 898 (citations omitted). "We construe a statute by reading and interpreting the statute as a whole, without isolating specific terms from the context in which they are used by the legislature." Fox , ¶ 18 (quoting Mont. Sports Shooting Ass’n v. State , 2008 MT 190, ¶ 11, 344 Mont. 1, 185 P.3d 1003 ) (internal quotations omitted). "Statutory construction should not lead to absurd results if a reasonable interpretation can avoid it." Mont. Sports Shooting Ass’n , ¶ 11.

¶15 There is no demonstrated issue of material fact regarding application of the statute to SCL’s actions. Under the statute’s plain language, the "burden" at issue here is the money obligation SCL owed to Bratton. Although...