
    Christy L. BRANDON, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC; Mountain West Bank, N.A.; Douglas W. Kikkert; Cheryl Kikkert; Milodragovich, Dale, Steinbrenner & Nygren, P.C.; Muriel J. Simmons, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35968.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014.
    Filed May 8, 2014.
    Christy Brandon, Brandon Law Firm, PLLC, Bigfork, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kevin S. Jones, Christian, Samson & Jones, Edward Albert Murphy, Murphy Law Offices, PLLC, Philip Bradford Con-dra, Esquire, Milodragovich, Dale & Ste-inbrenner P.C., Missoula, MT, Thomas Pardy, Pardy Law Firm, Billings, MT, Gregory W. Duncan, Esquire, Law Offices of Gregory W. Duncan, Helena, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

We review this question of Montana law de novo, Fourth Investment LP v. United States, 720 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir.2018), and affirm.

Under Montana law, the “statute’s plain language controls our interpretation if we can discern the legislative intent from the plain meaning of the statute’s words.” State v. Merry, 345 Mont. 390, 191 P.3d 428, 430 (2008). The plain meaning of Mont. Code Ann. (“MCA”) § 71-1-321 is clear: trust indentures are “considered to be mortgages” if the trust indentures are “not executed in conformity” with the Small Tract Financing Act (“STFA”). Thus, the district court did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that the defective trust indentures should be treated as mortgages.

Moreover, Amsterdam Lumber v. Dyksterhouse, 179 Mont. 133, 586 P.2d 705 (1978), does not control this case because MCA § 71-1-321 was not enacted until after Amsterdam Lumber was decided. Likewise, Earls v. Chase Bank of Texas, N.A., 312 Mont. 147, 59 P.3d 364 (2002), does not govern the effect of a purported STFA trust indenture on a property greater than 40 acres. Finally, because MCA § 71-1-321 is unambiguous, there is no reason to engage in a discussion of its legislative history. Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1261, 1268 (9th Cir.2009).

The Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion to have a question certified to the Montana Supreme Court is DENIED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     