Case Title: ESTATE OF GORDON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-239

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-06-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 80-239 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 I N T H E M A T T E R OF T H E ESTATE O F FRANCIS A. GORDON, a/k/a FRANCIS GORDON, a p r o t e c t e d person. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Beaverhead, The Honorable Frank B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Hooks and Budewitz, Townsend, Montana For Respondent : Richard J. Llewellyn, Helena, Montana W. G. G i l b e r t , 111, Dillon, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : March 25, 1981 Decided : J u b l 4 1981 F i l e d : dy# 4 1 9 8 ; Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This case involves appeals by all parties involved in these proceedings. Albert and Emily Gordon, parents of Francis Gordon and one time conservators of his estate, appeal from a finding and order of contempt entered by the Beaverhead County District Court (Gordon appeal). An attorney, W. G. Gilbert 111, acting in behalf of Francis Gordon, appeals the court's order of a new trial to redetermine the amount of attorney fees due from his representation of Francis Gordon (Gilbert appeal). A third appeal has been filed by Richard Llewellyn, the current conservator of Francis Gordon's estate. This appeal is explained in the conservator's brief as being brought in opposition to the order for a new trial regarding Gilbert's attorney fees and in support of the court's contempt order. In 1976 Albert and Emily Gordon were appointed by the District Court to act as conservators of the estate of their son, Francis Gordon. In March 1978 Francis Gordon petitioned the District Court and demanded that Albert and Emily, as conservators, file a sworn accounting showing all receipts and disbursements of the conservatorship. Albert and Emily failed to appear at the hearing on the petition whereupon the court ordered the accounting be filed within ten days and that the conservators appear before the court and show cause why they should not be removed from their position. A show cause hearing was held on July 25, 1978. Subsequently, the District Court, on September 26, 1978, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order removing Albert and Emily as conservators. The court f u r t h e r ordered t h e Gordons t o f i l e a f u l l , complete and a c c u r a t e accounting of a l l monies r e c e i v e d d u r i n g t h e i r c o n s e r v a t o r s h i p ; t o pay t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t ( i n t e r i m c o n s e r v a t o r ) w i t h i n t e n d a y s c e r t a i n sums o f money improperly withheld from o r charged t o F r a n c i s Gordon; and t o pay a t t o r n e y f e e s t o W. G. G i l b e r t 111, a t t o r n e y f o r F r a n c i s Gordon. The amount of a t t o r n e y f e e s were t o be determined a t a l a t e r h e a r i n g . On December 1 8 , 1 9 7 8 , G i l b e r t f i l e d two c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e e s t a t e of F r a n c i s Gordon f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s rendered and expenses i n c u r r e d i n t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of F r a n c i s Gordon. These c l a i m s t o t a l e d $4,721.17. F a i l i n g t o have t h e c l a i m s s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s , G i l b e r t f i l e d a. motion on June 1 8 , 1979, t o compel payment by t h e newly appointed temporary c o n s e r v a t o r , I r e n e Newlon. Hearing on t h e motion was scheduled f o r J u l y 1 0 , 1979, and t h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h a t n o t i c e of t h e h e a r i n g be g i v e n t o A l b e r t and Emily Gordon. A copy of t h e motion t o compel and o r d e r d i r e c t i n g n o t i c e t o be g i v e n were d u l y s e r v e d on June 19, 1979. A t t h e scheduled h e a r i n g , G i l b e r t appeared p e r s o n a l l y and I r e n e Newlon's a t t o r n e y appeared on her b e h a l f . N e i t h e r t h e Gordons nor t h e i r a t t o r n e y made an appearance. The p a r t i e s p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g d i d n o t q u e s t i o n o r c o n t e s t t h e c l a i m f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s . A s a. r e s u l t , t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r on J u l y 17, 1979, approving G i l b e r t ' s c l a i m and d i r e c t i n g t h e c o n s e r v a t o r t o o b t a i n t h e monies f o r payment from A l b e r t and Emily Gordon i n accordance w i t h its o r d e r of September 26, 1978. A n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was p r e p a r e d , signed and f i l e d by G i l b e r t . O n J u l y 25, 1979, t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t s e r v e d by m a i l t h e n o t i c e and a copy of t h e o r d e r on a l l p a r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g A l b e r t and Emily Gordon. Richard Llewellyn was a p p o i n t e d s p e c i a l c o n s e r v a t o r of t h e e s t a t e of F r a n c i s Gordon i n September 1979. I n e a r l y J a n u a r y 1980, he f i l e d a p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h a t A l b e r t and Emily Gordon be h e l d i n contempt of c o u r t f o r t h e i r a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r o f September 26, 1978. An o r d e r t o show c a u s e was d u l y i s s u e d t o t h e Gordons and t h e i r c u r r e n t a t t o r n e y of r e c o r d . I n response t o t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e Gordons, on January 31, 1980, f i l e d a n o t i o n t o quash t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e . A t t h e same time, t h e y f i l e d a motion f o r a new t r i a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of J u l y 1 7 , 1979, wherein t h e c o u r t upheld G i l b e r t ' s c l a i m f o r $4,721.17 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s . A h e a r i n g on t h e motions was h e l d on February 26, 1980. On March 1 3 , 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d t h e Gordons' motion f o r a new t r i a l and e n t e r e d an o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s t o G i l b e r t . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h e award was t o be vacated because t h e judgment was r e n d e r e d u n d e r a " m i s t a k e o f f a c t , i n a d v e r t e n c e and e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t i n t h e absence of s a i d former c o n s e r v a t o r s [ A l b e r t and Emily Gordon] . . . and because of a f r a i l n o t i c e t o them s c a r c e l y a d v i s i n g them of anything t o be heard e x c e p t 'payment of b i l l s . ' " On A p r i l 8 , 1980, t h e t r i a l judge h e l d t h e Gordons i n contempt of c o u r t f o r f a i l i n g t o comply w i t h its September 26, 1978, o r d e r . The c o u r t f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d t h e Gordons t o pay $6,858.90 t o t h e clerk of t h e c o u r t i n accordance w i t h t h e September 1978 o r d e r . From t h e s e o r d e r s , G i l b e r t , Llewellyn and t h e Gordons appeal. C o n c e r n i n g t h e " G i l b e r t " a p p e a l , t h e s o l e i s s u e r a i s e d is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l . I n t h i s r e g a r d , G i l b e r t contends t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r because t h e Gordons, i n b r i n g i n g t h e motion f o r new t r i a l , f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g requirements of Rule 5 9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.: "Time f o r motion. A motion f o r a new t r i a l s h a l l be served n o t l a t e r t h a n 10 d a y s a f t e r s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment . " Here, t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment, a l t h o u g h prepared and signed by G i l b e r t , was served on t h e Gordons by t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t on J u l y 25, 1979. The motion f o r a new t r i a l , however, was n o t f i l e d o r served on opposing c o u n s e l u n t i l J a n u a r y 1 9 8 0 , some s i x months l a t e r . C e r t a i n l y , t h i s p e r i o d is f a r i n e x c e s s o f t h e r u l e l i m i t a t i o n of t e n days. The Gordons contend t h e i r motion was t i m e l y f i l e d . I n s u p p o r t of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , t h e y argue t h a t s i n c e G i l b e r t p r e p a r e d , signed and gave t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment t o t h e c l e r k f o r s e r v i c e , t h e n o t i c e is d e f i c i e n t and cannot s e r v e t o s t a r t t h e l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d c o n t a i n e d i n Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P. W e must d i s a g r e e . There is no requirement i n t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure t h a t t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment be s i g n e d by t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t or t h a t t h e n o t i c e be prepared and g i v e n t o t h e c l e r k by t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " a s a s s e r t e d by t h e Gordons i n t h e i r b r i e f . The o n l y requirement is t h a t upon e n t r y of t h e o r d e r o r judgment by t h e c o u r t , t h e c l e r k s h a l l s e r v e by m a i l n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y upon each p a r t y t o t h e proceeding and s h a l l make n o t e i n t h e d o c k e t of t h e m a i l i n g . See Rule 77 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. T h i s requirement was s a t i s f i e d , and w e f i n d no d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e n o t i c e r e c e i v e d by t h e Gordons. T h i s Court has s t r i c t l y enforced t h e time l i m i t a t i o n s set f o r t h i n Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P. See P i e r c e Packing Company v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t -SQ-l 1 Se9 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 50, 579 P.2d 760; K e l l y v. Ehe3+ & h e 4 A P a i n t C o n t r a c t o r s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. 440, 574 P.2d 1002; Armstrong v. High Crest O i l , I n c . ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 187, 520 P.2d 1081. W e w i l l n o t d i s r e g a r d t h o s e requirements and must now f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e Gordonsl motion and o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l . I n regard t o t h e Gordon a p p e a l , w e n o t e t h a t it is s o l e l y t h e r e s u l t of t h e A p r i l 1980 judgment f i n d i n g t h e Gordons i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g t o a b i d e by t h e d i r e c t i v e s of a c o u r t o r d e r e n t e r e d on September 26, 1978. I n d e f e n s e of t h e contempt charge, A l b e r t and Emily Gordon contend t h a t c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court made i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e p r i o r c o u r t o r d e r a r e n o t supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence. The Gordons f u r t h e r a s s e r t t h a t d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e contempt p e t i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r v a r i o u s agreements which p u r p o r t e d t o r e l e a s e a l l r i g h t s , c l a i m s and c a u s e s of a c t i o n F r a n c i s Gordon had a g a i n s t them. The Gordons t h e n conclude t h a t t h e contempt o r d e r should n o t have i s s u e d and t h i s Court should now modify t h a t o r d e r and t h e September 26, 1978, o r d e r s o a s t o be i n accordance w i t h t h e submitted r e c o r d . W e acknowledge t h e Gordons' c o n t e n t i o n s b u t conclude t h a t t h e y have been improperly p r e s e n t e d on appeal. S e c t i o n 3-1-523, MCA, is p e r t i n e n t i n t h i s r e g a r d and s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s : "Judgment and o r d e r s i n contempt cases f i n a l . The judgment and o r d e r s o f t h e c o u r t o r judqe - - made i n c a s e s of contempt a r e f i n a l and c o n c l u s i v e . There is no a p p e a l , b u t t h e a c t i o n s of a d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r judge can be reviewed on a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i by t h e supreme c o u r t o r a judge t h e r e o f and t h e a c t i o n of a j u s t i c e of t h e peace o r o t h e r c o u r t of l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t or judge of t h e county i n which such j u s t i c e or judge of such c o u r t of l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n r e s i d e s . " I f t h e Gordons wish t h i s Court t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e contempt proceedings and t o review any underlying s u p p o r t i v e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s o r o r d e r s , it w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o f i l e an a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t of review. For t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n t h e Gordon a p p e a l , c h a l l e n g i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of contempt, is d i s m i s s e d . Furthermore, t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e Gordons a new t r i a l is v a c a t e d , and t h e judgment e n t e r e d on J u l y 1 7 , 1 9 7 9 , a p p r o v i n g G i l b e r t ' s c l a i m f g r a t t o r n e y f e e s is // a f f irmed. W e concur: J