Title: MYSKEWITZ v BERG

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

NO. 13468 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 MICHAEL b.XSKEWITZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. CLAYTON BERG I Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the r & h Judicial District, Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Smith & Harper, Helena, Montana Charles A. Smith argued. For Respondent : Smith, Emmons, Baillie & Walsh James R. Walsh argued Submitted: June 6, 1977 Decided : jUk 2 2 9 9 7 7 Filed: JuN 22 ! w d Honorable Leonard H. Langen, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . chief J u s t i c e Paul G. H a t f i e l d , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from an order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Lewis and Clark County, denying defen- d a n t ' s motion t o vacate t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t order changing t h e venue of t h i s a c t i o n back t o Cascade County entered on May 2 0 , 1976. The a c t i o n seeks recovery of money a l l e g e d l y due under an o r a l c o n t r a c t . O n September 30, 1975, p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , eighth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Cascade County, and a f t e r motion made by defendant t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t moved t h e place of t r i a l t o Lewis and Clark County. After t h e f i l e a r r i v e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e c l e r k of c o u r t , L e w i s and Clark County, p l a i n t i f f moved t h e c o u r t t o r e t u r n t h e c a s e t o Cascade County and by order made and entered April 12, 1976, t h e motion was granted. The order s t a t e d : "The Motion of t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r Change of Venue having been submitted together with supporting Brief and no opposing Brief o r Memorandum having been f i l e d by defendant, and t h e same being deemed an admission by defendant t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s Motion is meritorious, and it appearing i n any event t o t h e Court t h a t t h e Motion of p l a i n t i f f f o r Change of Venue should be allowed f o r t h e reason t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l Change of Venue t o L e w i s and Clark County was improvidently granted. "NOW, THEREFORE, I T I S ORDERED AND THIS D O E S ORDER t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s Motion f o r Change of Venue from t h e above e n t i t l e d Court t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth 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 Cascade be and t h e same i s hereby granted." Two days a f t e r t h e April 12 o r d e r , defendant f i l e d h i s motion t o vacate t h e April 1 2 order. The motion was set f o r hearing f o r April 27, 1976, but a t t h e request of t h e movant t h e April 27, 1976, hearing d a t e was vacated without d a t e . F i n a l l y on May 21, 1976, t h e Lewis and Clark Court f i l e d i t s order s t a t i n g t h a t t h e motion of defendant t o vacate t h e order changing venue is denied and on May 25, 1976, t h e f i l e was returned t o t h e c l e r k of c o u r t , e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Cascade County. Thereafter and on June 16, 1976, a Cascade County d i s t r i c t judge was d i s q u a l i f i e d and another judge assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . O n June 2 1 , 1976, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d and served h i s n o t i c e of readi- ness f o r t r i a l . Three days l a t e r , on June 24, 1976, defendant f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of appeal which s t a t e s : "Notice i s hereby given t h a t C L A Y T O N BERG, Defen- dant above-named, hereby appeals t o t h e Supreme Court of t h e S t a t e of Montana from t h e order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t 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 Lewis and Clark denying Defendant's Motion t o vacate t h e D i s t r i c t Court order changing venue of t h i s a c t i o n back t o C a s - cade County entered herein on t h e 20th day of May, 1976." W e f i n d t h a t defendant's appeal should be dismissed f o r t h e reason t h a t t h e order t o vacate i s not an appealable o r d e r and, i f it w e r e t o be t r e a t e d a s an appeal from t h e order dated April 12, changing t h e place of t r i a l t o Cascade County, t h e appeal should be dismissed f o r t h e reason t h a t it was not timely made. Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., provides: "The t i m e within which an appeal from a judgment o r an order must be taken s h a l l be 30 days from t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , except t h a t i n cases where s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment i s required by Rule 77(d) of t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Pro- cedure t h e t i m e s h a l l be 30 days from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment * * *." Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. r e q u i r e s t h a t upon e n t r y of an order t h e Clerk s h a l l serve a n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y by mail upon each p a r t y who is not i n d e f a u l t and s h a l l make a note i n t h e docket of t h e mailing. W e could f i n d no e n t r y t h a t t h e April 12 order f o r change of venue was served pursuant t o Rule 7 7 ( d ) . However t h e f i l e does show t h a t defendant f i l e d h i s motion t o vacate t h e A p r i l 1 2 order on April 14, 1976. Therefore we hold that in order for defendant to have made a timely appeal, his notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 14, 1976. Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., also provides for certain in- stances where the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal is suspended. However we are unable to find that de- fendant's situation comes within any of these exceptions. Rule 5 also permits the district court to extend the time for filing of notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect. However, by the time defendant got around to filing his notice of appeal in this case, the time for this relief had expired. Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., specifies from what judgment or order an appeal may be taken. The rule specifically allows an appeal from an order changing or refusing to change the place of trial when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county, but we find nothing in Rule 1 which permits an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order changing venue. Defendant raised other issues in his brief and during his oral argument. Since the appeal is being dismissed for the reasons stated, these issues are not being discussed. Judgment affirmed. ------------- ---- Hon. Leonard H. Langen, district' judge, sitting in place of Mr. Chief Justice Paul G. Hatfield.