Lockhead v. Weinstein

¶14 I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion in this case. I would affirm the decision of the trial court.

¶15 The majority concludes at ¶ 12 that the District Court erred “by shifting the burden of proof on the issue of residency to Lockhead.” I cannot agree.

¶16 First, the majority restates the incompletely-stated rule that appears in Clark Fork Paving. In that case this Court stated that “[t]he burden of proof is upon the moving party seeking the change of place of trial” and cited to our decision in Rapp v. Graham (1965), 145 Mont. 371, 373, 401 P.2d 579, 581. See Clark Fork Paving,…