The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday reinstated the insurance fraud conviction of a former beauty queen who once owned and lived in the historic Somers mansion.

Christin Didier was convicted by a federal jury in March 2013 of seven counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. However, on July 30 last year, U.S. District Court Judge Donald W. Molloy of Missoula acquitted Didier on a defense motion to overturn the verdict.

The appeals court ruled that Molloy had erred in acquitting Didier, reversed his order and remanded the case to U.S. District Court for further proceedings. 

Didier had not been sentenced when Molloy vacated her conviction.

Molloy’s acquittal of Didier had been appealed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Racicot.

A Lewistown native who was named Miss Montana in 1997, Didier bought the Somers mansion in 2005 for $1.1 million. 

While she owned the home, it was damaged by a windstorm and a minor fire. She eventually was forced to file for bankruptcy and the mansion was foreclosed on in February 2011.

At the same time that Didier was evicted — September 2012 — the federal government was preparing its case against her.

Didier and her broker, Surayya Nasir, a codefendant in the case, allegedly told Didier’s insurance company, the Chubb Corp., that during seven months of 2008 while repairs on the mansion were being completed, her temporary residence was a 6,900-square-foot home with five bedrooms, two baths and an in-ground pool, while it was really an 860-square-foot cabin with no indoor plumbing and no pool.

The pair allegedly collected $15,250 per month for temporary housing.

Seven checks totaling $122,791 were issued to Didier and mailed from Illinois to Montana, hence the seven counts of mail fraud. One check for $10,875 was mailed to Nasir.

 Molloy wrote a 38-page order explaining why he acquitted Didier, saying Chubb Corp. was not defrauded by Didier when she misrepresented her living conditions. Molloy asserted that Chubb was “contractually obligated to pay what it was allegedly deprived of by misrepresentation or lies.

“Chubb argued to state and federal regulatory and investigative agencies that it had been victimized when Didier misrepresented the nature of her temporary residence,” Molloy wrote. “But, because Chubb was obligated to pay her an amount sufficient to maintain her standard of living in a mansion with multiple bedrooms, multiple baths, and even a ballroom, whatever she said could not have been material to Chubb.”

Molloy wrote that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the convictions of Didier and Nasir because there was no proof that any of Didier’s misrepresentations caused Chubb to pay her any more than she was already due under the policy.

Nasir’s conviction also was overturned by Molloy.