Title: Latendresse v. Latendresse

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

294 N.W.2d 742 (1980) Albert LATENDRESSE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Orville LATENDRESSE, a.k.a. Orville J. Latendresse, and Ruth Latendresse, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. No. 9583. Supreme Court of North Dakota. June 20, 1980. *743 Michael S. McIntee, Towner, for plaintiff and appellee. Charles D. Orvik Law Office, Rugby, by Gene A. Nygaard, for defendants and appellants, on brief only. Orville Latendresse, pro se, on oral argument. SAND, Justice (on reassignment). This appeal by Orville and Ruth Latendresse from a summary judgment is a sequel to Latendresse v. Latendresse, 283 N.W.2d 70 (N.D.1979), wherein we declined to dismiss the appeal filed by Orville and Ruth Latendresse and permitted them to correct the defects in the appeal within fifteen days. In this case, except for the brief filed by an attorney, Orville acted pro se, but in 283 N.W.2d 70 Orville and Ruth were represented by counsel. The facts leading to the summary judgment are succinctly stated in 283 N.W.2d 70: The answers to Albert's request for admissions were made and served upon Albert's counsel on 10 Oct. 1978. The hearing on the motion[1] for summary judgment was held on 11 Oct. 1978. The request for admissions and the answers thereto are as follows: The answers to the request for admissions were transmitted to Albert's counsel by the following letter: This letter, according to a notation at the bottom, was received 10/10/78 by addressee. Curtis Latendresse, not a party to the action, made some unsworn answers to the request for admissions. They, however, do not satisfy or qualify under Rule 56(e) North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, and could not and apparently were not used by the court in its resolution of the motion for summary judgment. On previous occasions we said that we do not believe that any rule or statute should be modified, altered, or applied differently merely because a party not learned in the law was or is proceeding pro se in a special proceedings, action at law or equity or in an appeal. Dorgan v. Mercil, 269 N.W.2d 99 (N.D.1978). This concept was reaffirmed in Lang v. Basin Electric Power Coop., 274 N.W.2d 253, 259 (N.D.1979). In order to determine if the summary judgment is proper it is necessary to determine first if the counterclaims were properly dismissed, because if any counterclaim remains to be resolved the summary judgment on the complaint alone would be improper. The two principal counterclaims involved here are: (1) The alleged oral contract between Albert and Orville for "wintering" Albert's cattle for the past ten years; and (2) The allegations that Albert's negligence caused the second fire, resulting in damages to Orville and Ruth. On the oral contract for "wintering" Albert's cattle for the past ten years, Albert argued the statute of frauds, § 9-06-04, NDCC, applied on the theory that it was a contract that could not be completed within one year and had to be in writing. The statute of frauds was not pleaded. However, the statute of limitations was pleaded as to paragraph I of the counterclaim relating to a promissory note for a loan in the amount of $2,637.50 on 15 Nov. 1950, but not specifically to the "wintering" of the cattle. The facts do not disclose whether the contract was a single contract or a series of year-to-year contracts running from fall to spring. There may also be a further question as to whether or not the contract was performed or partially performed so as to take it out of the statute of frauds. In Buettner v. Nostdahl, 204 N.W.2d 187 (N.D.1973), this court reaffirmed what it had said in Parceluk v. Knudtson, 139 N.W.2d 864, 871 (N.D.1966), that: Vasichek v. Thorsen, 271 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 1978), reaffirmed what was said in Buettner, supra. See also, Kadrmas v. Kadrmas, 264 N.W.2d 892 (N.D.1978). After reviewing the record we are convinced that genuine questions remain as to the "wintering contract," i. e., was it a single contract or a series of contracts and was there any performance, partial or complete. We therefore reverse the trial court on its dismissal of the counterclaim relating to "wintering" cattle. We now consider Orville's counterclaim alleging Albert's negligence brought about the fire and caused damages to Orville and Ruth (second fire). The transcript of the hearing on 11 Oct. 1978 on the motion for a summary judgment discloses the following dialogue between the court and Orville Latendresse: The foregoing proceedings indicate the trial court was under the impression that a request for additional time to answer had to be made within the 30-day period provided for in Rule 36, NDRCivP. The proceedings also disclose that except for request number 8 the court, on the motion for summary judgment, considered all requests for admissions as admitted on the grounds that the answers were not made and served within the 30-day period. However, Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2257, page 720, regarding Rule 36, Civil Procedure, among other things, said: In a footnote it said: Another footnote stated: Volume 4A Moore's Federal Practice (2d ed.), Admission of Facts Procedure § 36.05[4] stated: French v. United States (Cir.Ct.App. 9th 1968), 416 F.2d 1149, 12 F.R.Serv.2d 36 A. 54 Case 1. Demmert v. Demmert (D.Alaska) 115 F. Supp. 430, 19 F.R.Serv. 36 A. 27, Case 1; Ark-Tenn Distrib. Corp. v. Breidt, (D.N. J.1953) 110 F. Supp. 644, 18 F.R.Serv. 36 A. 54, Case 1, aff'd (C.A.3d 1954), 209 F.2d 359, 19 F.R.Serv. 36b.3, Case 1. The foregoing authorities clearly establish that an extension of time within which to answer requests for admission may be made after the time period of 30 days has elapsed. The court did not explain how plaintiff was prejudiced nor does the record reflect that plaintiff was prejudiced. There is no *748 showing that witnesses, as a result of failure to answer within time, are no longer available or that certain evidence is no longer available because of the failure to respond within the time specified by the rule. The court obviously has erroneously equated the mere making of a motion with prejudice. This court has not ruled on this precise question but has expressed itself on comparable situations. In LeFevre Sales, Inc. v. Bill Rippley Construction, 238 N.W.2d 673 (N.D.1976), Chief Justice Erickstad, on behalf of the court, said: See also, Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. Loeffler, 225 N.W.2d 286 at 289-290 (N.D. 1974); Hogan v. Knoop, 191 N.W.2d 263 at 266 (N.D.1971). In Gerhardt v. Fleck, 251 N.W.2d 764 (N.D.1977), after setting out somewhat recent cases in which motions to dismiss were granted and motions to dismiss appeal were denied, we denied a motion to dismiss an appeal where the appellant had failed to perfect the appeal in a timely manner. We said: These cases clearly illustrate that mere delay in itself is not always prejudicial. Albert did not show how or in what manner he was prejudiced. The party moving for a summary judgment has the burden to demonstrate clearly that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Boone v. Estate of Nelson, 264 N.W.2d 881 (N.D.1978). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment is to be given all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Johnson v. American Motors Corporation, 225 N.W.2d 57 (N.D.1974). Even though facts may not be in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate if inferences reasonably deducible from the facts are conflicting. Zuraff v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 252 N.W. 302 (N.D.1977). In Kirton v. Williams Electric Cooperative, Inc., 265 N.W.2d 702 (N.D.1978), this court quoted from Clausen & Sons v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., 395 F.2d 388, 389 (8th Cir. 1968), as follows: A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if, after considering the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is demanded there is no genuine issue of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 275 N.W.2d 304 (N.D.1979); Albers v. NoDak Racing Club, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 1977). One of the basic issues raised by the counterclaim and reply pertains to the fire allegedly attributed to Albert's negligence and the alleged resulting damages. Negligence cases by their very nature are poor subjects for summary judgments. Helbling v. Helbling, 267 N.W.2d 559 (N.D.1978). In Hart v. Kern, 268 N.W.2d 136, 138 (N.D.1978), we said that: The requests for admissions do not cover this point adequately. Even if the requested admissions are deemed admitted, the basic issue of negligence and damages still remains. Furthermore, it is doubtful that a request for an admission on the principle point in issue is proper. It is comparable to requesting an admission that the allegations are false and the lawsuit has no value. The negligence issue is still present in this case even though the court ruled that the request for admissions were deemed admitted. When negligence is an open question, as it is here, then comparative negligence may become a matter to be resolved. Also, the matter of damages is a question of fact which has not been resolved even though by the "admission route" they would be considered minor. But what is minor damage? This certainly varies with each person. The question on the documents allegedly lost as a result of the fire has no significance unless the negligence is established. It should be observed that it is not claimed that the documents were destroyed by the fire but rather because of the fire they were lost. This includes actions taken by others to presumably safeguard the papers from the fire. The effect of the trial court's decision in allowing additional time (20 days) to respond to request number 8 because of the typographical error, "do" for "no," is an anomaly. If the answers to the other questions are deemed admitted and if such admissions eliminated the issue of negligence, then what would be the purpose or significance of extending the time to answer question number 8? Ironically, however, the trial court, after Albert said he would let his answer stand, proceeded to grant summary judgment. This is a clear indication that the trial court believed that the answer to admission number 8 was of significance, which adds to the total confusion in this case. In the final analysis, by taking into account the totality of this case, the ends of justice were not satisfied or furthered when the trial court ruled the question in the request for admissions were deemed admitted because of failure to respond within the time period specified in the rule when there was no showing of prejudice; and by granting summary judgment on the erroneous assumption that no genuine issue of fact, either by evidence or by inference, existed. The summary judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Costs assessed to neither party. PAULSON and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur. PEDERSON, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the majority opinion insofar as it holds that a genuine issue of fact remains as to the "wintering" of cattle; however, I disagree that summary judgment was improper as to the $4,000 note dated February 9, 1963, and as to the other counterclaims. I would remand the case for further proceedings only on the issue of Orville and Ruth's right to an offset for their costs in wintering Albert's cattle. Although I agree with the majority opinion that a late response to a request for admissions should not automatically cause the matters contained therein to be admitted, I believe it goes too far in allowing litigants relief who do not follow the applicable rules. To apply Rule 36, NDRCivP, in every case, without exception, could result in injustice *750 in some cases but, where the claims are as incredible as the majority of the counterclaims in this case are, the Rule should be applied. This is clearly the type of case in which the Rule should apply. Rule 36, NDRCivP, in relevant part, provides as follows: Confronted with the request for admissions, Orville and Ruth were required to either (1) admit the truth of the statements, (2) deny their truth, or (3) explain why they could not admit or deny them, and object to them in writing. The failure to respond at all constitutes an admission of the truth of the statements contained in the request. See DeGrove v. Sanborn, 70 Mich.App. 568, 246 N.W.2d 157 (1976); Woodrow v. Johns, 61 Mich.App. 255, 232 N.W.2d 688 (1975); Weva Oil Corporation v. Belco Petroleum Corporation, 68 F.R.D. 663 (D.C.W.Va.1975). Orville and Ruth attempt to justify their failure to respond by pointing out the fact that a typographical error made one of the questions ambiguous. However, they give no explanation why the other seven questions were not answered and the ambiguous one objected to within the prescribed period. I do not believe this is too great a burden to place upon a party when served with a request for admissions. In order to justify granting additional time, the failure to make a timely response must be due to excusable neglect and must not prejudice the party requesting the admissions. Coolik v. Hawk, 133 Ga.App. 626, 212 S.E.2d 7 (1974). The lack of understanding of the rules by one who declines to seek the assistance of an attorney should not be treated as excusable neglect. In the instant case, the district court stated in its decision from the bench that Albert would be prejudiced if Orville and Ruth's late answers were accepted as Albert came to court prepared to argue the motion and delay would result. This type of prejudice was accepted as sufficient to warrant not allowing late responses to a request for admissions in Weva Oil Corporation v. Belco Petroleum Corporation, supra: The court's decision to deem the matters admitted was within its discretion, as was the court's decision to allow an answer to be given for question # 8 which was ambiguous. The trial court's conclusion that several of the claims are no longer in issue and summary judgment as to these claims should be granted was correct: (1) As to Albert's claim on the $4,000 note: Orville and Ruth admit in their answer that they signed the $4,000 promissory note dated February 9, 1963, and admit through the requests for admissions that no payments have been made on the note. (2) As to Orville and Ruth's claim for damages to their house and for loss of documents in a fire allegedly caused by Albert: through the requests for admissions, Orville and Ruth admit that any loss they might *751 have incurred is not chargeable to Albert's negligence. (3) Finally, the trial court properly dismissed Orville and Ruth's counterclaim for a $2,637.50 promissory note executed by Albert which was dated March 15, 1950, as collection is barred by the Statute of Limitations. See § 28-01-16, NDCC. I would therefore hold that as to the promissory note dated February 9, 1963, there remains no justiciable issue of fact to be tried, and that the trial court properly granted Albert's motion for a summary judgment. As for Orville and Ruth's various counterclaims, I would hold that all were properly dismissed except for their claim for the costs they incurred wintering Albert's cattle. I would remand on this issue alone for a determination of whether or not an offset is due for the service provided. There should be no further judicial effort extended on Orville's claim that the loss of some papers, which he cannot describe, resulted in his inability to prove "a $400,000.00 USA Wildlife depredation suit, a $300,000.00 Pioneer State Bank Breach of Contract suit, a suit [for] a Veterans pension, and [for] a US Air Force dependency allotment." ERICKSTAD, C. J., concurs. [1] "MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT "COMES NOW, the Plaintiff and moves this Court for Summary Judgment against the named Defendants pursuant to Rule 56 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure for and upon the grounds that the Defendants have failed to Answer a Request for Admission in accordance with Rule 36 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure and thereby, have admitted all the material allegations of the Complaint. [Underscoring supplied.] "Further, that the allegations of the Counterclaim not otherwise explained, do not constitute a claim upon which relief can be granted. "WHEREFORE, your movant prays this Court to set a time and place for hearing this motion. "Dated at Towner, North Dakota this 28th day of September, 1978. Note the motion for summary judgment refers to the complaint but does not specifically refer to the counterclaim except by the statement, "allegations of the Counterclaim not otherwise explained, do not constitute a claim upon which relief can be granted." However, our decision does not rest upon this point.