Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Combined Opinion

                  by McKinnon](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10803246/warwood-v-florer/about:blank#o1) The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Warwood v. Florer

Montana Supreme Court

• Citations: 2026 MT 44N
• Docket Number: DA 25-0684
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Nature of Suit: Direct Appeal

• Disposition: AFFIRMED

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (507)

• PDF

Disposition

AFFIRMED

Combined Opinion

                        by [Laurie McKinnon](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/4988/laurie-mckinnon/)

FILED

a | 03/03/2026
wy hE Wie blue Bowen Greenwood

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

DA 25-0684 STATE OF MONTANA.

Case Number: DA 25-0684

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2026 MT 44N

DAVID B. WARWOOD,

Petitioner and Appellee,

FILED

DENNIS SCOTT FLORER, MAR 0 3 2026

Bowen Greenwood
Clerk of Supreme Court

Respondent and Appellant. State of Montana

V.

APPEAL FROM: _ District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DR 16-2025-504
Honorable Andrew Breuner, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Scott Florer, Self-Represented, Belgrade, Montana

For Appellee:

Dave Warwood, Self-Represented, Belgrade, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 18, 2026

Decided: March 3, 2026

Filed:

C—GH

Clerk \

Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.

ql Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.

2 On September 23, 2025, the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin
County, pursuant to § 40-15-204, MCA, entered a permanent order of protection for David
Warwood (Warwood) against Scott Florer (Florer). William Powell (Powell) also sought
an order of protection against Florer, and the District Court combined the petitions for
purposes of a hearing. The District Court did not enter an order of protection for Powell
because Powell did not want to testify, although he testified on behalf of Warwood. Florer
appeals the order of protection entered for Warwood.

q3 The District Court conducted a hearing on September 22, 2025, in which Warwood
and Powell, on behalf of Warwood, testified. Warwood testified that he had allowed Florer
to stay at a cabin on his property in return for doing work on the cabin. Florer was to begin
work in May 2025. The court found that a short, handwritten note admitted by Florer
during his cross-examination of Warwood evidenced a “work for rent” arrangement where
Florer would be paid $50 per hour and pay rent of $800 per month. Warwood testified that
a dispute arose over the completed work and that Florer became verbally abusive towards
him. Warwood further testified that Florer had grabbed a large stick from a pile, and he

thought Florer was going to use it on him. Powell testified about an incident several weeks

2
prior when he had a verbal altercation with Florer and Florer retrieved a handgun from his
vehicle and pointed it at him. When Florer asked Powell if he actually had seen a handgun,
Powell explained that if it was not a handgun, it was clearly Florer’s intent that it appear to
be one. Florer did not testify or call any witnesses.

44 The District Court initially determined that a one-year order of protection was
needed. However, Florer became agitated, even following the court’s admonishment not
to interrupt, and the court determined that Florer’s behavior convinced the court that the
order of protection should be made permanent to protect Warwood.

45 On appeal, Florer maintains that the District Court abused its discretion in entering
the order of protection, that the court improperly based its determination on Powell who
did not testify in support of Powell’s petition, that Powell should not have been able to hear
Warwood’s testimony, and that his constitutional rights have been violated. We note that
Florer has not produced the record or transcripts on appeal.

§6 Eventhough Florer was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, this waiver
does not include the costs of paying the court reporter to prepare the transcripts on appeal.
M. R. App. P. 5(5); § 3-5-604, MCA. This Court recognizes the burden on litigants of
limited means when they must come up with funds on their own to secure
a transcript for appeal. An appellant, however, has the duty and bears the responsibility to
make arrangements to pay the court reporter preparing the transcripts. M. R. App. P. 8(3),
9(1).

q7 We nonetheless have carefully reviewed Florer’s opening brief and the District

Court’s order. “This Court will not overturn a district court’s decision to continue, amend,

3
or make permanent an order of protection absent an abuse of discretion.” Lockhead v.
Lockhead, 2013 MT 368, § 12, 373 Mont. 120, 314 P.3d 915. An abuse of discretion occurs
if a court rules “based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous conclusion or
application of law, or otherwise acts arbitrarily, without conscientious judgment or in
excess of the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice.” State v. McGhee, 2021
MT 193, 4 11, 405 Mont. 121, 492 P.3d 518. Based upon our review, we conclude that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion when it issued a permanent order of protection
for Warwood. The District Court’s determination was based on its observation of Florer’s
behavior in court, the underlying facts, and its conclusion that a permanent order of
protection was necessary to protect Warwood.

48 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review.
49 Affirmed.

OK tee ~

Justice

We Concur:

VY Chf€f Justice

(

4