______
On April 9, 2025, Flathead County District Judge Dan Wilson announced his candidacy for the Montana Supreme Court, after narrowly losing a bid for the same office in 2024. Wilson’s 2026 platform emphasizes “constitutional originalism and judicial restraint,” which is ironic in light of what is about to be revealed.
Wilson, born in Billings, has roots in Montana that stretch back for generations. After receiving a Juris Doctor (J.D) from University of Minnesota Law School in 1993, he passed the Montana Bar exam and was admitted to the BAR that same year.
Wilson’s career began as a prosecutor in Great Falls, Montana, where he mostly handled criminal cases. Wilson later moved to private practice and was even a Justice of the Peace in Phillips County before he was elected as a District Judge in Montana’s 11th Judicial District Court in Flathead County, Montana in 2016.
Also, in 2016, a key decision was made in the case of Whitefish Credit Union (WCU) vs. Thorco, Inc. and the owners of the corporation, Donna and Dennis Thornton. A decision that brings us into 2025, and one that also plays a vital part in Dan Wilson’s Supreme Court test.
Editor’s Note: Much more detail into the history of the WCU vs. Thorco conflict can be found in this report, with these exhibits as a companion. For more recent information and interviews click here.
Although the above mentioned Thorco vs WCU case had it’s origination in 2009 with the original loan, the meat of the material which will be covered moving forward began in 2016 when Judge Bob Allison dismissed the lawsuit against Thorco by WCU with prejudice and declared that Thorco didn’t owe any more money to WCU. The ruling by Judge Bob Allison can be found by clicking here.
Judge Dan Wilson Open a Case that was Dismissed with Prejudice
If you do an AI search on the requirements that have to be met to re-open a case that has been dismissed with prejudice, this is the same basic answer you get, regardless of which AI you choose:
A case dismissed with prejudice means the case is permanently closed and cannot be refiled in the same court or based on the same claims. However, reopening a case dismissed with prejudice is extremely difficult and generally only possible under very limited and exceptional circumstances.
Here are the general requirements or grounds to attempt to reopen such a case:
- Fraud, Misconduct, or Misrepresentation
- Clerical Mistake or Judicial Error
- Newly Discovered Evidence
- Lack of Jurisdiction
- Violation of Due Process or Constitutional Rights
- Strict time limits often apply — especially for Rule 60(b)(1)-(3), which usually require motions to be filed within 1 year of the dismissal.
______
In 2018, Judge Dan Wilson re-opened the Thorco case against WCU without ANY of the above criteria being met. WCU now claimed that Thorco, Inc. owed well over $4 million dollars, despite the 2016 settlement and dismissal with prejudice. Wilson granted WCU summary judgement in the case, which was not in his purview to do. The unusual ruling by Wilson begs the question, does Wilson not know the law, or is he in on the scam? See his ruling by clicking here.
In summary, Judge Dan Wilson operated outside his authority and defied all legal standards by re-opening the Thorco case in 2018, which was dismissed with prejudice in 2016. In addition, Wilson allowed WCU to violate Montana’s “One Action Rule,” described below.
The “one action rule” in Montana is a legal principle that applies primarily in mortgage foreclosure law. It limits a creditor to one legal action to recover a debt secured by real property
Enter the Crime Boss? Whitefish Attorney, Sean Frampton

______
Besides the usual title companies and bank employees, one person’s name and law firm seems to be involved in not only the Thorco case, but in most every case of the victims interviewed by NorthWest Liberty News. That name is Sean Frampton and his Frampton law firm.
Editor’s Note: Frampton took the deeds for the Thorco case and instead of filing them with the title company as per the settlement agreement, he hid them in his desk and then lied about it
You can watch the account of some of the victims by clicking this link
You can read the article and watch the video account of the Sean Frampton vs. Deanna McAtee trial by clicking this link.
Editor’s Note: Frampton was subsequently found guilty of Malicious Prosecution of McAtee by a jury in 2023, yet he still practices law in Montana
The Judge Dan Wilson-Sean Frampton Connection
You’ve probably heard the phrase, “there are no coincidences.” We’re not here to argue this idea one way or another, we just dig for facts and look for patterns. And the pattern we found seems to be one of Sean Frampton illegally going after property of WCU borrowers using lawfare, and Judge Dan Wilson providing cover.
The re-opening of the 2016 case against Thorco by Wilson, against all judicial decorum, wouldn’t be the last time that Frampton and Wilson teamed-up to screw a Montanan. Just look to the 2019 Deanna McAtee case. Here is a summary:
In 2019, Judge Dan Wilson presided over a case involving Deanna McAtee and the law firm Morrison & Frampton, where Frampton is a named partner.
- Wilson granted summary judgment in favor of Morrison & Frampton, dismissing McAtee’s claims of malicious prosecution with prejudice.
- The Montana Supreme Court later reversed Wilson’s decision in 2021, finding that he had erred in his interpretation and handling of the case.
- This case directly links Wilson’s judicial role to Frampton’s firm, and the reversal became a notable critique of Wilson’s judgment record.
Dan Wilsons Supreme Court Test
Since Judge Wilson re-opened the Thorco case in 2018, a case that was dismissed with prejudice in 2016, numerous hearings, numerous motions, and a ton of paperwork has been filed. (Again, see a case history by clicking here.) Subsequently, Thorco Inc. had to file bankruptcy to protect their property and interests.
During the most recent bankruptcy, new information was obtained that precipitated the document below to be filed by Dennis Thornton, which is a Motion to Vacate Judge Wilson’s 2018 summary judgement, as described above.
Click to Open
All of the exhibits attached to the above motion can be found on Dropbox by clicking here
As the exhibits will show, on at least 3 occasions, and by at least 4 people, the determination has been made, under oath, that Dennis Thornton and Thorco, Inc. did not owe WCU and money after August 24, 2016. This determination can be substantiated by the following documents:
- Testimony from the Montana Banking Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the 2009 mortgage was extinguished when WCU vacated its foreclosure judgement and dismissed the case. See that document by clicking here.
- WCU’s February 28, 2025 filing in federal court verifying that there has never been a monetary judgement in favor of WCU against Thorco or the Thorntons based on a mortgage foreclosure. See that document by clicking here.
- Chapter 7 Trustee Christy Brandon’s objection stating that “The judgement entered in favor of WCU against Thorco was vacated and the underlying debt…was satisfied. See that document by clicking here.
Here it is in a nutshell. Judge Dan Wilson has a choice to make based upon all of the above information. Does he continue to adhere to his 2018 ruling to protect his crooked friends, or does he rightfully take all of the new evidence into account and vacate his 2018 judgement against Thorco, based upon the fact that Thorco didn’t owe any money to WCU?
Dan Wilson wants to sit on Montana’s highest court. This in a time where the majority of Montanans are fed-up with the Montana Supreme Court and their activist rulings. As stated earlier, Wilson’s platform is “constitutional originalism and judicial restraint.” Are these just words to get elected, or will Wilson practice what he preaches? This case is Wilson’s test. Ultimately, will Wilson play for “Team Criminal,” or “Team Law and Order,” if he makes it to the SC? Time, as they say, will soon tell.
The companion podcast can be viewed by clicking the video below

Don’t forget what Dan Wilson did to Mr. Jeff Hatch in a property distribution order. He used dissenting opinions in a 40 year old case from yellowstone county to support his decision. It was unbelievable.