Case Title: NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INS v AGRA-

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-484

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-08-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 80-484 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 N O R T H W E S T E R N NATIONAL INSURANCE C O M P A N Y , a corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . AGRA-STEEL CORPORATION, e t a l . , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh 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 Flathead Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and P h i l l i p s , K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondent : Warden, Christiansen and Johnson, K a l i s p e l l , Montana A s t l e and A s t l e , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : May 28, 1981 Decided: August 6 , 1 9 8 1 Filed: A U G 6 - 1988 m Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant, Agra S t e e l , appeals from a judgment entered August 12, 1980, i n t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Flathead County, following a t r i a l before t h e c o u r t . The judgment awarded Northwestern National Insurance Company $20,000 with accrued i n t e r e s t and awarded $24,319 t o James R. Johnson and Barbara E. Johnson. The damages r e s u l t e d from breach of express and implied warranties covering a steel s t o r a g e building purchased from Agra S t e e l by t h e Johnsons and insured by Northwestern National. A heavy snowfall caused t h e roof t o sag. Approximately one year a f t e r t h e roof was damaged, Northwestern National Insurance Company paid the Johnsons $20,000 under an insurance c o n t r a c t covering the building. Northwestern then sued Agra S t e e l through e x e r c i s i n g subroga- t i o n r i g h t s . The Johnsons a l s o brought s u i t claiming damages i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $20,000 paid under t h e insurance c o n t r a c t . The a c t i o n s were t h e r e a f t e r consolidated and t r i e d before t h e c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury. Consolidated judgments a g a i n s t Agra S t e e l were ordered August 11, 1980, and n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d August 1.2 and served upon counsel f o r Northwestern ~ a t i o n a l Insurance and Agra S t e e l . Counsel f o r t h e Johnsons was n o t served. Agra S t e e l f i l e d i t s n o t i c e of appeal September 2 2 , 4 1 days from n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment. On September 2 4 , t h e respondents made a motion t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o dismiss t h e appeal a s untimely f i l e d . Argument on t h e motion t o dismiss t h e appeal was heard October 7 and on October 27, the D i s t r i c t Court found and ordered: " . . . the Clerk of t h i s Court neglected t o send Notice of Entry of Judgment t o defendant's co- counsel i n the S t a t e of Missouri; t h a t t h e same may have caused confusion on t h e p a r t of such co- counsel a s t o when t h e appeal t i m e commenced run- ning; it appears t o t h e Court t h a t t h e same con- s t i t u t e s excusable neglect; "Therefore, p l a i n t i f f s ' Motion t o D i s m i s s i s hereby denied; t h e t i m e within which defendant may f i l e its n o t i c e of appeal i s hereby extended t h i r t y days. Dated t h i s 27th day of October, 1980." Agra S t e e l d i d n o t f i l e a subsequent n o t i c e of appeal, o s t e n s i b l y r e l y i n g upon t h e n o t i c e of appeal f i l e d September I n every appeal t h e f i r s t question is t h a t of j u r i s d i c - t i o n . Hand v. Hand (1957), 131 Mont. 571, 576, 312 P.2d 990, 992. Before proceeding w e must consider whether o r n o t Agra S t e e l properly perfected its r i g h t of appeal. Appellant had t h e duty t o p e r f e c t i t s appeal i n t h e manner and within t h e t i m e l i m i t s provided by law. Absent such compliance, t h i s Court does n o t acquire j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n and determine t h e m e r i t s of t h e appeal. P r i c e v. Mont. Zunchich (1980), - - , 612 P.2d 1296, 37 St.Rep. Rule 4 ( a ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., states: " [A] n appeal s h a l l be taken by f i l i n g a n o t i c e of appeal i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court." Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., provides: "The t i m e within which an appeal from a judgment o r an order must be taken s h a l l be 30 days from t h e e n t r y thereof, except t h a t i n cases where s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment i s re- quired by Rule 77(d) of the Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure the t i m e s h a l l be 30 days from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment . . . ". . . Upon showing of excusable neglect, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t may extend t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e of appeal by any p a r t y f o r a period n o t t o exceed 30 days from t h e e x p i r a t i o n of the o r i g i n a l t i m e prescribed by t h i s r u l e . " I n t h i s case t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d August 12 and served by mail. The o r i g i n a l time f o r giving n o t i c e of appeal t h e r e f o r e expired 34 days l a t e r on September 15, Rule 2 1 M.R.App.Civ.P. The maximum allowable time period within which t h e D i s t r i c t Court could g r a n t an extension of t i m e f o r f i l i n g the n o t i c e of appeal expired October 15. Zell v. Zell (1977), 172 Mont. 496, 565 P.2d 311. The D i s t r i c t Court, i n i t s order of October 27, denied respondents' motion t o dismiss t h e appeal and extended t h e time f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e u n t i l November 27. The order was erroneous because it granted an extension of t i m e beyond t h e l i m i t s of Rule 5, M.R.App.Cil7.P. The D i s t r i c t Court could n o t a c t af ter October 15. The only n o t i c e of appeal here on f i l e i s one f i l e d o u t of t i m e . N o timely order has extended t h e t i m e . W e hold Agra S t e e l , by f a i l i n g t o f i l e a timely n o t i c e of appeal, has f a i l e d t o p e r f e c t i t s r i g h t of appeal. W e , t h e r e f o r e , lack j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h e m e r i t s and must dismiss t h i s appeal. W e concur: Chief ~ u s t i c e J u s t i c e s !