Our Results Speak for Themselves

The Case

Brett and Ceree Houghton owned Great Wakes Boating, Inc., an authorized Malibu Boats dealership. After years of building a successful business, Malibu terminated the dealership agreement despite representations that the relationship would continue. The Houghtons lost their business, their real estate, and their financial stability. They were forced into bankruptcy.

The Trial

Dale Montpelier took the case to a five-day jury trial in Loudon County Circuit Court. The jury found Malibu Boats liable on all counts: intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and promissory fraud. The jury awarded the Houghtons $900,000 in compensatory damages for loss of equity in their dealership properties.

The Fight After the Verdict

After losing at trial, Malibu Boats attempted to erase the verdict entirely. They argued for the first time, after the jury had already ruled, that the Houghtons lacked legal standing to bring the case. The trial court initially agreed and dismissed the $900,000 verdict.

The Appeal

Dale Montpelier refused to let the verdict die. He appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which reversed the dismissal and reinstated the case.

The Tennessee Supreme Court

Malibu Boats escalated to the Tennessee Supreme Court. In a landmark decision issued October 22, 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the Houghtons on every point.

The Court held that the plaintiffs had constitutional standing because they personally suffered real financial harm. The Court determined that Malibu's standing challenge was not a jurisdictional issue that could be raised at any time. Most significantly, the Court ruled that Malibu forfeited the argument by waiting until after the jury verdict to raise it.

The Supreme Court made clear that defendants cannot sit through an entire trial and then attempt to undo the result with a technical defense they never raised during the proceedings.

The Impact

This decision did not just save the Houghtons' verdict. It established important legal precedent in Tennessee.

• The opinion clarified that defendants cannot ambush plaintiffs with standing challenges after trial.
• It drew clear distinctions between constitutional standing, shareholder standing, and statutory standing.
• It strengthened the rights of individual shareholders to sue in business disputes.
• The opinion is already being cited as precedent by other Tennessee Supreme Court decisions.