Case Title: SHANNON v HULETT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-01-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 8 2 - 2 1 2 I N THE SUPREI~IE COURT OF THE S.TATE OF FIONTANA 1 9 8 2 CHARLES SHANNON, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , DONALD E. HULETT, EAST VALLEY TRUCI<ING, and STEVEN LUKSHA, D e f e n d a n t s and Apsellants. A p 2 e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and for t h e C o u n t y of Jefferson, T h e I I o n o r a b l e F r a n k B l a i r , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : F o r A p p e l l a n t s : C o r e t t e , S m i t h , P o h l r n a n & A l l e n ; R o b e r t C a r l s o n , B u t t e , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : John L. P e t e r s o n , B u t t e , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : S e p t e m b e r 9 , 1 9 8 2 D e c i d e d : January 1 9 , 1 9 8 3 . Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendants appeal an order of the Jefferson County D i s t r i c t Court granting pla.intiff a new t r i a l after a jury returned a defense verdict in a personal injury case. Although defendants raise several issues concerning a claim that the t r i a l court abused its discretion, we decline t o decide the case on the m e r i t s a t this t i m e because the t r i a l court, in granting a new t r i a l , failed t o canply with Rule 59(f), M.R.Civ.P., which requires that: "Any ord-er of the court granting a new t r i a l , shall specify the grounds therefor with sufficient particularity as t o a p r i s e the parties and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling, and this may be done in the body of the order, or in an attached mrandum. " In granting a new t r i a l the court entered an order m e 1 e . 1 - y stating that "on good cause shown the motion by plaintiff for a new t r i a l is hereby granted. " The defendants then a p a l e d , and three and a half months after the notice of appeal was filed, the t r i a l court filed a document with +this Court entitled "Certification of Issues on A p a l in Granting Motion for a New Trial." This document, prepared by plaintiff's counsel, sets forth +the reasons the t r i a l court granted a new trial. For policy reasons, we decline t o consider that order which attempts t o relate back t o the original- order grantina a new t r i a l . In Churchhill v. Holly Sugar Corp. (19811, Mont . I 629 P.2d 758, 38 St.Rep. 860, we held that amended findings of fact filed after a notice of appeal has been filed cannot be considered. The policy reasons underlying this holding also apply here. In addition, i n Ballantyne ~ 7 . Anaconda Co. (1978), 175 Mont. 406, 574 P.2d 582, because the t r i a l court had fa.iled t o comply w i t h Rule 59(f) in granting a new t r i a l , we remanded t o the t r i a l court t o enter reasons for granting a new t r i a l . After this was done the case wzs not again appealed t o this Court. Rule 59 ( f ) assures that +his Court will not have t o guess a t a t r i a l court's reasons for granting a new t r i a l , that we w i l l not have t o search for the ~roverbial needle in the haystack. Further, where reasons are absent it is difficult to determine whether the t r i a l court properly exercised its discretion in granting a new t r i a l . The rule provides a n imprtant safeguard t o the t r i a l court's use of discretion. Requiring reasons means that the t r i a l court must discipline its thinking in the process of considerinq the claimed reasons a new t r i a l should be granted. This process should result in a higher probability that a proper decision w i l l h e reached. The costs of a new t r i a l i n many cases are significant; the tria.1 court owes a duty t o the litigants, t o the public, and t o this Court, to follow these safeguards in determining whether a new t r i a l should be granted. W e are aware that \re accepted a so-called later certificati-on of reasons for granting a new t r i a l in G i l e s v. Flint Valley Forest Products (1979), 179 Mont. 382, 588 P.2d 535, and held that the late certification nonetheless fulfilled the policy behind Rule 59(f). To the extent G i l e s is inconsistent with our holding here, it is 0~7errul.ed. An order, whether prepared by an attorney for the t r i a l court's signature, or an order prepared bv the t r i a l court i t s e l f , entered after the decision granting a new t r i a l , f a i l s t o disclose the reasoning process used in reaching the decision t o grant a new trial. To he of value, that reasoning process must precede the order granting a new t r i a l and it must be s e t forth in writing a t least simul~taneously with the orcler granting the new t r i a l . W e dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand the case t o the t r i a l court for reconsideration and entry of an order i n compliance with Rule 59 ( f ) . We Concur: Chief Justice f i r . Chief Justice FranK I. Haswell, dissenting: The majority hold that a subsequent certification of the reasons why the District Court granted a new trial is ineffective and remand the case back to the District Court for reconslderatlon. In my view thls rullng exalts form over substance, technicality over purpose, and is quite unrealistic. The result is delay in final disposition of cases, an unneces- sary burden on Montana's District Courts, many of which are alreaay staggering under unmanageable caseloads, and pro- motes only an academic and theoretical objective. We already have before us for review the Distrlct Court's order granting a new trial and the District Court's reasons for that order. If the majority feel the order granting a new trial is erroneous, this Court can so rule on appeal. What is accomplished by remanding the case back to the District Court for entry of another order with contem- poraneous reasons therefor? 1s it realistic to think that anything of substance will be changed in this process? The Dlstrlct Court has already ruled and given its reasons. I would follow our prior decision in Giles v. Flint Valley Forest Products (1953), 179 Mont. 382, 588 P.2d 535, holding that later certification of the reasons for an order yrantlng a new trial satisfies the purpose and policy behind Rule 59(b), M.R.Civ.P. The District Court's order is either correct or incorrect. It is our duty to determine this on appeal. % . A O U e . p , & Chief usl lice