Case Title: JACKSON v TINKER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12403 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1972 NORMA J . JACKSON, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, CHRISTINE T. TINKER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Paul G. H a t f i e l d , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Wuerthner & Wuerthner, Great F a l l s , Montana, John P. Wuerthner argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. For Respondent: Loble, P i c o t t e , Loble, Pauly and Sternhagen, Helena, Montana. Lester H . Loble 11 argued, Helena, Montana. Submitted: December 4, 1972 Decided : F i l e d : Q E ~ 1 ; 1 9 7 2 DEC 11.1972 PER CURIAM: This matter comes a s a p e t i t i o n by appellant, Norma J. Jackson, who was p l a i n t i f f i n an action i n Chouteau County, Cause No. 14022, e n t i t l e d Jackson v. Tinker. The p e t i t i o n reci.tes t h a t on October 19, 1972, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a notice of appeal i n t h a t cause. The appeal was taken from an order of the d i s t r i c t court which stated: 11 Hearing having been held upon notice and a special appearance of the Administrator of the Estate of Thelma Lee Saul Carriveau, Deceased, memoranda having been submitted by decedent ' s e s t a t e and defendant herein, p l a i n t i f f not having responded and the time f o r submitting further memoranda otherwise expired; "Plaintiff having f a i l e d t o respond t o the orders of the Court dated August 17, 1971, and April 12, 1972 requiring p l a i n t i f f j oin an indispensable party and t o f i l e a memorandum; and i t appearing t o the Court t h a t service on the guardianship e s t a t e of Thelma Lee Saul Carriveau, now deceased, has not been completed and said party i s necessary f o r a j u s t adjudication of p l a i n t i f f ' s claim, and t h a t the action should not proceed among the p a r t i e s before the Court but r a t h e r be dismissed, the absent party being indispensable; and i t appearing further t h a t since more than eight years have expired since p l a i n t i f f ' s claim arose, a joinder of said indis- pensable party and prosecution of the action i s there- fore barred by the s t a t u t e of limitations; and the Court having considered the matter, the memoranda submitted by counsel and the record of the proceedings herein, and being f u l l y advised i n the premises, "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED t h a t said cause i s dismissed f o r failure t o join an indispensable party; and it i s fur- ther ordered t h a t said dismissal be with prejudice by reason of the expiration of the applicable s t a t u t e of limitations against said absent party. This Order i s a f i n a l determination of a l l matters before the Court i n t h i s case. "DATED t h i s 24th day of August, 1972. f f ~ ~ ~ ~ G. HATFIELD "DISTRICT JUDGE" A notice of entry of judgment dated August 28, 1972, was f i l e d . This notice was f i l e d and served by mail and was received by counsel f o r appellant, p e t i t i o n e r here, on August 30, 1972. Counsel f o r appellant s t a t e s t h a t a copy of the order r e c i t e d i n the notice was not attached. The notice reads: "TO: THE PLAINTIFF, NORMA J. JACKSON, and t o her attorney, JOHN P. WUERTHNER "You and each of you w i l l please take notice, and you, and each of you, a r e hereby n o t i f i e d , t h a t on the 24th day of August, 1972, Judgment was entered i n the above- e n t i t l e d cause i n favor of the defendant and against the p l a i n t i f f , i n accordance with the order of t h a t date signed by Paul G, Hatfield, the D i s t r i c t Judge presiding i n t h i s case and t h a t a copy of said order adjudging a dismissal of the case with prejudice i s hereto attached and here- with served upon you. "DATED t h i s 28th day of August, 1972. "LOBLE, PICOTTE, LOBLE, PAULY & STERNHAGEN". It appears on the face of the records here t h a t the notice of appeal f i l e d on October 19, 1972, was not timely, being some s i x weeks a f t e r notice of entry of judgment. The purpose of the p e t i t i o n here i s t o seek a declaration by t h i s Court t h a t the time f o r taking an appeal from the order and judgment of dismissal did not begin t o run because the copy of the order was not attached t o the notice a s r e c i t e d therein. Upon r e c e i p t of the p e t i t i o n , t h i s Court made an order s e t t i n g the matter f o r argument, Oral argument was had on December 4, 1972. The Court does not have the o r i g i n a l d i s t r i c t court f i l e but does have copies of the documents, a s attached exhibits. The position of respondent, Christine T. Tinker, i s t h a t the notice of entry of judgment quoted above, with o r without attach- ment, i s adequate and s t a r t e d the time running; and thus the appeal was not timely and should be dismissed. Rule 77(d), M.R.Civ.P., reads: "(d) NOTICE O F ENTRY O F JUDGMENT SERVED. Within 10 days a f t e r entry of judgment i n an action i n which an appearance has been made. notice of such entry, together with a copy of such judgment or a seneral description of the nature and amount o f r e l i e f and damages thereby granted, s h a l l be served by the prevailing party upon the adverse party." (Emphasis supplied) . The notice of entry of judgment heretofore quoted i n f u l l , s t a t e s i n part: " J : ; ? ;?Judgment w a s entered in -Pie r:f;ave-entitled cause i n favor of the defend:^^' a:-,: against the D l a i n t i f f . 9 : 9 : " 6% and i't ik ik a ~ o p y oi! said order adjudgingza dismissal of the cake2iith p r e j u d i c ~ . - i s hereby attached JC 9 : i?". (Emphasis supplied) Under Rule 77(d), M.R.Civ,P,, i t i s not necessary t o s?-:ve a copy of the judgnei~t upon the adverse party. It i s only 1 1 necessary <:, se?:ve a general d(?scription of the nature and amount of r e l i e f and damages tl.~xc?by granted." Judge. Hatfield dismissed the case with prejudice. The notice of e n t r y of judg- ment s t a t e d t h a t Judge Hatfield dismissed the case with prejudice. This i s s u f f i c i e n t under Rule 77(d), M.R.Civ.P. Time f o r f i l i n g notice of appeal i s t h i r t y days. Rule 5 , 14.K.App.Civ.P. Under c e r t a i n circumstances (excusable neglect) the d i s t r i c t court may extend the time f o r f i l i n g t h e notice of appeal f o r a period not t o exceed t h i r t y days, from the expira- t i o n of the o r i g i n a l time prescribed by Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P. Here, no such extension was granted, although there was an order signed on October 26, 1972, granting counsel f o r ap- pellant u n t i l November 10, 1972, within which "to e f f e c t t h e 1 1 composition of the record on appeal. This was not an applica- t i o n under Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P., nor was it made upon excusable neglect, nor did it concern the time f o r f i l i n g of appeal. It simply was an order regarding the composition of the record on appeal and presumably was made pursuant t o the authority of the d i s t r i c t court t o extend time t o transmit the record under Rule Inasmuch a s the notice of appeal was not f i l e d f o r some s i x weeks following the notice of entry of judgment, it was not timely. Accordingly, the appeal was not timely made. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly, deeming himself disqualified, took no part i n t h i s Opinion.