Case Title: PIONEER CONCRETE v APEX CONSTRUCT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-122

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 8 0 - 1 2 2 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 0 PIONEER CONCRETE & FUEL, INC., a corporation, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , APEX CONSTRUCTION, I N C . , a corporation; and UNITED P A C I F I C INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, D e f e n d a n t s , T h i r d - P a r t y P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t , DARRELL BIRDSBILL, d/b/a BIRDSBILL CEMENT CONTRACTOR, T h i r d - P a r t y D e f e n d a n t . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second 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 Silver Bow, H o n o r a b l e A r n o l d O l s e n , 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 : G o u g h , Shanahan, Johnson and W a t e r m a n , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : C o r e t t e , S m i t h , D e a n , P o h l m a n and A l l e n , B u t t e , M o n t a n a Filed: S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : O c t o b e r 9 , 1 9 8 0 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. United P a c i f i c I n s u r a n c e Company a p p e a l s from an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e e n t r y of judgment i n f a v o r of P i o n e e r C o n c r e t e & F u e l , I n c . The S i l v e r Bow County D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r l e f t a t h i r d - p a r t y complaint i n t h e same a c t i o n pending. W e f i n d t h e District C o u r t ' s o r d e r nonappealable w i t h i n Rule 1, M.R.App. Civ.P., and Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., and d i s m i s s t h i s a p p e a l w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e . P l a i n t i f f - r e s p o n d e n t P i o n e e r C o n c r e t e & F u e l I n c . , ( P i o n e e r ) brought an a c t i o n a g a i n s t Apex C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . (Apex) and United P a c i f i c I n s u r a n c e C o . (United p a c i f i c ) to collect an a c c o u n t . Apex and United P a c i f i c i n t u r n f i l e d a t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t Darrell B i r d s b i l l . T h i r d - p a r t y p l a i n t i f f s o b t a i n e d a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t B i r d s b i l l on August 27, 1979. A t r i a l was h e l d on t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t on October 30, 1979. P r i o r to any d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t by t h e S i l v e r Bow County District Court, B i r d s b i l l moved t o have t h e d e f a u l t judgment set a s i d e . On December 28, 1979, a h e a r i n g was h e l d on B i r d s b i l l ' s motion and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t took t h e m a t t e r under advisement. The District Court e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment i n t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t on J a n u a r y 8, 1980. The c o u r t found d e f e n d a n t Apex l i a b l e on its account w i t h P i o n e e r and found t h a t United P a c i f i c was l i a b l e f o r any i n d e b t e d n e s s of Apex under sub- c o n t r a c t bonds i s s u e d to Apex. On J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1980, t h e District Court e n t e r e d its o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment which had p r e v i o u s l y been e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t Darrell B i r d s b i l l . Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., p r o v i d e s : "Judgment upon m u l t i p l e claims or i n v o l v i n g m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s . When m u l t i p l ~ c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f o r m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s are involved i n an a c t i o n , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y of a f i n a l judgment as t o one or more b u t fewer t h a n a l l of t h e claims or p a r t i e s o n l y upon an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e is no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y and upon an e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y of judgment. I n t h e absence of s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n and d i r e c t i o n , any o r d e r o r o t h e r form of d e c i s i o n , however d e s i g n a t e d , which a d j u d i c a t e s less t h a n a l l t h e claims o r t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of less t h a n a l l t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l n o t t e r m i n a t e t h e a c t i o n as t o any of t h e c l a i m s or p a r t i e s , and t h e o r d e r or o t h e r form of d e c i s i o n is s u b j e c t to r e v i s i o n a t any time b e f o r e t h e e n t r y of judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l t h e claims and t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l t h e p a r t i e s . " Rule 14, M.R.Civ.P.,expressly p r o v i d e s t h a t an e n t r y of judgment upon e i t h e r t h e o r i g i n a l claim or t h e t h i r d - p a r t y claim must comply w i t h Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. I n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e District Court d i d n o t make an " e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e is no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y . " Consequently, t h e o r d e r w a s i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n n a t u r e and not a p p e a l a b l e under Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P. See Roy v. Neibauer ( 1980) 1 Mon t . , 610 P.2d 1185, 37 St.Rep. 897, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . P r o f e s s o r Moore summarizes t h e i s s u e a s f o l l o w s : " I f a t h i r d - p a r t y claim becomes p a r t of t h e a c t i o n , t h e a c t i o n t h e n i n v o l v e s m u l t i p l e claims, as w e l l as m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s , even though it d i d n o t p r i o r t o t h e impleader; and a n adju- d i c a t i o n of one or more b u t fewer t h a n a l l of t h e claims, or of t h e i n t e r e s t of one o r more b u t fewer t h a n a l l of t h e p a r t i e s , is i n t e r l o c u - t o r y where t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t does not e x e c u t e its c e r t i f i c a t e . Whether t o e x e c u t e a cer- t i £ i c a t e f o l l o w i n g an a d j u d i c a t i o n as to one or more b u t fewer t h a n a l l of t h e claims o r p a r t i e s rests i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . " I n b r i e f , t h e n , once a t h i r d - p a r t y h a s been impleaded t h e act i o n i n v o l v e s m u l t i p l e claims and m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s ; a t h i r d - p a r t y claim is one o f t h e c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f mentioned i n 5 4 ( b ) ; and an a d j u d i c a t i o n as t o one or more b u t fewer t h a n a l l of t h e m u l t i p l e claims or p a r t i e s is i n t e r l o c u t o r y , a b s e n t a c e r t i f i c a t e , and has f i n a l i t y when t h e c e r t i f i c a t e is executed ." 6 Mooref s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e I[ 54.36. Although a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s between t h e Montana R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure and t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure, t h e approach t o be t a k e n is t h e same. Rule 5 4 ( b ) , Fed .R.Civ. P., e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e s t h a t it a p p l i e s to t h i r d p a r t y c l a i m s and t h e r e is no r e f e r e n c e i n Rule 1 4 , Fed.R.Civ.P., t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) . On t h e o t h e r hand, Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., m e r e l y p r o v i d e s t h a t it a p p l i e s to " m u l t i p l e claims" o r " m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s , " and Rule 14, M.R.Civ.P., s t a t e s t h a t any judgment e n t e r e d i n an a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g a t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m must be i n "accordance w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 54 ( b ) ." W e conclude t h a t t h e attempted a p p e a l is premature and it is dismissed w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e . v ..................................... Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: I