Case Title: ROSEN v MIDKIFF

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1974-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12550 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1974 IRMA ANN ROSEN, formerly IRMA ANN CRUM; GRACE J. WEEKS, formerly GRACE J. CRUM; and MARY E L L E N KOCH, formerly MARY ELLEN CRUM, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, JOHN L. MIDKIFF, SR., and J. L. MIDKIFF, a l s o known a s JOHN L. MIDKIFF , J R . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge presiding. ' 1 Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Kenneth R. Wilson argued, Miles City, Montana For Respondents : William F . Meisburger argued, Forsyth, Montana E j 3 Z 8 '874 Filed: . Submitted : January 18, 1974 Decided : I"EB 2 8 :ypf M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by p l a i n t i f f s , Irma Ann Rosen, Grace J. Weeks and Mary E l l e n Koch, from a judgment rendered by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s i x t e e n 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 Rosebud upon t h e granting of a motion f o r summary judg- ment made by t h e defendants, John L. Midkiff, Sr. and John L. Midkiff, Jr. There a r e two d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e s which by s t i p u l a t i o n a r e before t h i s Court. I n 1955 a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n , John L. Midkiff, e t a l . v. Irma Ann Rosen, e t a l . , was f i l e d i n Rosebud County a s C i v i l No. 6253. I n 1969 another a c t i o n was commenced by t h e defendants i n C i v i l No. 6253 t o vacate t h e judgment e n t e r - ed i n C i v i l No. 6253 i n favor of p l a i n t i f f s , Midkiff, e t a l . The 1969 a c t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s C i v i l No. 7453. Hereinafter, Irma Ann Rosen, Grace J. Weeks and Mary E l l e n Koch, t h e defendants i n C i v i l No. 6253, t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n C i v i l No. 7453 and a p p e l l a n t s herein w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s Rosens, and John L. Midkiff, Sr. and John L. Midkiff, Jr., t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n C i v i l No. 6253, t h e defendants i n C i v i l No. 7453 and respondents h e r e i n w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s Midkiffs. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e i n C i v i l No. 6253 shows t h e following p e r t i n e n t f a c t s : The complaint i n t h i s cause w a s answered by t h e Rosens. For reasons unknown, t h e c a s e remained dormant f o r s e v e r a l years. O n September 2 0 , 1967, p e t i t i o n and a f f i d a v i t s i n support thereof w e r e f i l e d by Midkiffs pursuant t o s e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947. O n t h a t same day, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t issued an order d i r e c t i n g Rosens t o show cause why they should n o t be d i r e c t e d t o d e p o s i t t h e sum of $2,712.94 t o t h e use of Midkiffs, as t a x purchasers i n t h e event Midkiffs' claim t o t h e r e a l property should not succeed. This order was mailed t o R. C . Harken, E s q . , a t t o r n e y f o r Rosens and t o t h e Rosebud County Treasurer. One p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e o r d e r was made i n t h e - 2 - Forsyth Independent a s is shown by a f f i d a v i t . O n September 29, 1967, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t quieted t i t l e i n Midkiffs a s t o a l l defendants, except t h e Rosens. The hearing on t h e order t o show cause was held on October 11, 1967. A s t o t h i s hearing t h e minute e n t r y of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t reads: "Hearing on Order t o Show Cause. Affidavit of Publication has been f i l e d herein showing due n o t i c e given. William F. Meisburger sworn and presented proof. Order r e q u i r i n g a deposit of $2,712.94 from t h e answering defendants is signed. Deposit t o be made no l a t e r than November 12, 1967. Let t h e record show t h a t M r s . Roe, of Lewistown, Idaho, one of t h e de- fendants named i n t h e above e n t i t l e d cause formerly bearing t h e name of Rosen, appeared i n c o u r t by her counsel, R. C. Harken and made no objection t o t h e P e t i t i o n f o r t h e require- ment of Deposit, with the understanding t h a t t h e defendants would still have t h e opportunity t o appear i n s a i d cause and answer and c o n t e s t t h e claim of t h e p l a i n t i f f . Order is signed." N o deposit was made within t h e t i m e required. By supple- mental and f i n a l decree of November 17, 1967, t h e d i s t r i c t court entered a judgment f o r Midkiffs and a g a i n s t Rosens q u i e t i n g t i t l e t o t h e lands i n d i s p u t e i n t h e Midkiffs. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e i n C i v i l No. 7453 r e v e a l s t h a t on October 21, 1969, t h i s cause w a s commenced by Rosens t o a t t a c k t h e judgment entered i n C i v i l No. 6253. I n April 1970, Midkiffs f i l e d t h e i r answer and a motion f o r summary judgment. O n June 26, 1970, Rosens f i l e d a motion f o r leave t o amend t h e complaint and an amended complaint was f i l e d on December 15, 1972, which i n substance alleged: t h a t t h e order t o show cause issued on Septem- ber 2 0 , 1967, was mailed t o R. C. Harken, a t t h a t t i m e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e Rosens and t h a t personal s e r v i c e was not made of t h i s order . on Rosens nor was t h e order posted a s required by s e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947; t h a t R. C. Harken, by l e t t e r of October 7, 1967, forwarded a copy of t h e order t o each of t h e appellants but t h a t only one of them Irma Ann Rosen, received t h e l e t t e r p r i o r t o t h e hearing d a t e ; and t h a t by t h e decree of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t de- f a u l t judgment was entered a g a i n s t Rosens without n o t i c e of w r i t t e n application f o r judgment, a s provided by Rule 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , M.R.Civ.P. and t h a t n e i t h e r R. C. Harken nor t h e Rosens received n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment a s required by Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. O n December 20, 1972, Midkiffs f i l e d t h e i r answer t o t h e amended complaint and a counterclaim. Midkiffs denied t h a t personal s e r v i c e was not made and t h a t t h e r e was no posting a s required by t h e s t a t u t e , and denied t h a t t h e order of October 11, 1967 was not served. The only new a l l e g a t i o n i n ~ i d k i f f s ' c o u n t e r - claim was t h a t t h e judgment a g a i n s t Rosens i n C i v i l No. 6253 was not a d e f a u l t judgment and Rule 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , M.R.Civ.P. d i d n o t apply. O n March 6 , 1973, Midkiffs moved f o r summary judgment, and on March 30, 1973, t h e motion was heard. I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were taken by Midkiffs of t h e Rosens. O n May 15, 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered its findings of f a c t and conclusions of law and granted Midkiffs' motion f o r summary judgment and dismissed Rosens' complaint with prejudice. Rosens moved t o amend t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s findings of f a c t and conclusions of l a w which w a s denied. Rosens have appealed. Rosens present two i s s u e s f o r review, both of which can be summarized a s follows: Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n granting t h e motion f o r summary judgment? Rosens contend t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t should not have granted t h e summary judgment f o r t h e reason t h a t Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P., which requires s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment, was not followed i n C i v i l No. 6253, and t h e r e was no showing of s a i d s e r v i c e . The purpose of Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. i s obviously t o inform a party t h a t a judgment has been entered a g a i n s t him and t h e nature and amount of r e l i e f and damages thereby granted. Pursuant t o Rule 81, M.R.Civ.P., c e r t a i n s t a t u t o r y proceedings l i s t e d i n Table A , M.R.Civ.P. take precedence over t h e r u l e s where i n c o n s i s t e n t . Section 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947 i s s o l i s t e d and provides i n p a r t : "Upon t h e hearing of t h e order t o show cause t h e court s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o determine s a i d amount and t o make an order t h a t t h e same be paid i n t o c o u r t within a given t i m e , not ex- ceeding t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) days a f t e r t h e making of s a i d order. I f such amount, when so determined, s h a l l not be paid within t h e t i m e fixed by s a i d c o u r t , then s a i d t r u e owner s h a l l be deemed t o have waived any d e f e c t i n t h e t a x proceedings and any r i g h t of redemption, and thereupon, i r r e s p e c t i v e of any i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , d e f e c t s o r omissions o r t o t a l f a i l u r e t o observe any of t h e provisions of t h e s t a t u t e s of Montana regarding t h e assessment, levying of taxes, o r s a l e of property f o r t a x e s , and t h e giving of notices, including n o t i c e s of redemption, o r concerning t a x deeds, whether o r not such omissions o r f a i l u r e s make s a i d pro- ceedings void (other than t h a t t h e taxes w e r e not delinquent o r have been p a i d ) , t h e t i t l e of such t r u e owner s h a l l not be q u i e t a s a g a i n s t s a i d purchaser o r h i s successors, and a decree s h a l l be entered i n s a i d a c t i o n q u i e t i n g t h e t i t l e of s a i d purchaser o r h i s successor a s a g a i n s t s a i d t r u e owner." According t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t minutes of October 11, 1967, R. C. Harken appeared on October 11, 1967, and was advised i n open c o u r t of t h e f a c t t h a t the f a i l u r e t o deposit t h e sum of $2,712.94 by November 1 2 , 1967, would r e s u l t i n t h e e n t r y of judgment. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t minutes f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e t h a t R. C. Harken appeared f o r t h e "defendants" (Rosens) . It i s f u r t h e r noted t h a t attorney Harken made no objection t o t h e p e t i t i o n , with t h e understanding t h a t t h e defendants would still have t h e opportunity t o appear i n t h e cause and answer and c o n t e s t t h e claim. The record shows t h a t a t a l l times p r i o r t o and including t h e t i m e of t h e hearing on t h e order t o show cause, Rosens w e r e represented by attorney Harken. Rosens, through t h e i r attorney, had n o t i c e t h a t i f they d i d n o t deposit t h e sum required, a decree pursuant t o s e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947, would be entered a g a i n s t them q u i e t i n g t i t l e i n Midkiffs. The deposit was not made and t h e decree was entered. It is t h i s Court's view t h a t it would be redun- dant t o require t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R=Civ.P. under t h e circumstances here, t h e r e being n o t i c e t h a t a decree would be entered i f t h e money was not deposited. By reason of Rosens' own f a i l u r e t o d e p o s i t t h e money, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered t h e decree quieting t i t l e i n Midkiffs. For Rosens now t o say t h a t they should have been given notice of t h i s e n t r y of judgment pursuant t o Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. is without merit. Rosens a l s o contend t h a t t h e motion f o r summary judgment should not have been granted f o r t h e reason t h a t t h e order of October 11, 1967, was i n v a l i d because of lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n under s e c t i o n 84-4158, supra. Rosens argue t h a t because t h e r e is no showing t h a t t h e order t o show cause of September 2 0 , 1967 was posted i n t h r e e public places t e n days before t h e hearing d a t e , s e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947, was not followed. A s t o t h e order t o show cause of September 2 0 , 1967, sec- t i o n 84-4158 s t a t e s : "In any a c t i o n now pending, o r h e r e a f t e r brought t o s e t a s i d e o r annul any t a x deed, o r t o q u i e t t i t l e * * * t h e purchaser o r h i s successor upon f i l i n g an a f f i d a v i t may obtain from t h e c o u r t an order d i r e c t e d t o t h e person claiming t h e property * * * o r t o show cause on a d a t e t o be fixed i n s a i d order, not exceeding t h i r t y (30) days from t h e d a t e thereof, why such payments should not be made. Said a f f i d a v i t s h a l l s e t f o r t h t h e place of residence of s a i d t r u e owners and whether they a r e i n t h e s t a t e of Montana, i f known t o the p l a i n t i f f , o r t h a t t h e same i s not known t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . "Said order s h a l l be f i l e d with t h e c l e r k and a copy served personally upon a l l persons shown i n s a i d a f f i d a v i t t o be r e s i d e n t s of and i n t h e s t a t e of Montana, and j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l be acquired over a l l other persons by publishing t h e same once i n a newspaper i n t h e county, and by posting t h e same i n t h r e e (3) public places i n t h e county a t l e a s t t e n ( 1 0 ) days before t h e day fixed f o r t h e hearing and by leaving a copy with t h e county t r e a s u r e r . " Section 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947,requires a nonresident t o be n o t i f i e d of t h e order t o show cause by having it published i n a newspaper i n t h e county and by posting t h e same i n t h r e e public places i n t h e county a t l e a s t t e n days before t h e d a t e s e t f o r hearing. The i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o t h e t h r e e appellants show i d e n t i - c a l answers t o t h e following question: " * * * Please s t a t e a l l proof and evidence t h a t you have knowledge of t h a t s a i d order t o show cause was not properly posted." Their answers were uniformly t h a t t h e i r attorney d i d not f i n d an a f f i d a v i t of posting i n t h e f i l e and t h a t , therefore, "we assume t h a t it was not posted." The presumption i n favor of t h e posting by t h e c l e r k , while rebuttable, i s provided i n s e c t i o n 93-1301-7(15), R.C.M. 1947, which provides, "That o f f i c i a l duty has been r e g u l a r l y performed. I' It i s t h i s Court's opinion t h a t a mere assumption i n t h e absence of an a f f i d a v i t i n t h e court f i l e i s not t h e type of proof which i s necessary t o override t h e presumption t h a t t h e a c t was o f f i c i a l l y performed i n a routine and regular manner, and t o have received t h e answer by appellants i n t h e interrogatory was ample indication t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t o t h i s Court t h a t t h e r e was no other proof. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t properly concluded t h a t t h e Rosens were a t a l l t i m e s under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Rule 56 (c) , M.R.Civ.P., provides i n p a r t : " * * * The judgment sought s h a l l be rendered forthwith i f t h e pleadings, depositions, answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e show t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any material f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a matter of law. * * *" A s t h i s Court i n Stensvad v. Miners & Merchants Bank of Roundup, Mont . - , 517 P.2d 715, 30 St.Rep. 1178, 1 1 8 2 , s t a t e d : Rule I1under/56 (c) , M.R.Civ.P., t h e moving party f o r summary judgment must bear t h e burden of proving t h e absence of any genuine i s s u e as t o a l l m a t e r i a l f a c t s which would, as a matter of law, e n t i t l e him t o judgment. Kober v. Kyriss v. B i l l i n g s Deaconess Hospital, 148 Mont. 117, 417 P.2d 476." From our examination of t h e record herein, t h a t is, t h e pleadings, Rosens'answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e i n C i v i l No. 6253, and from our discussion of t h e contentions presented by Rosens, it is our conclusion t h a t t h e r e is no genuine i s s u e a s t o any material f a c t and Midkiffs were e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a matter of law. For t h e foregoing reasons, t h e judgment,of t h e d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. ,-i---------------- Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: *- ."+. ",.* ,bd; P L * ' ' -"S~.J,"~~---L-L ---- ----- -2- ! , - >'I ' - - i f . J -,?- - - - - A - ---- i s , ---*---ii* -----