Title: SEARIGHT v CIMINO

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA MURLAND W. SEARIGHT and VIRGINIA SEARIGHT, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vs- MICHAEL CIMINO, . . = . D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . , - ; APPEAL FROK: ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ; : L-' I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of F l a t h e a d , T h e H o n o r a b l e L e i f E r i c k s o n , Judge presiding.' COUNSEL OF RECORD: 6 2 F o r A p p e l l a n t : M u r l a n d W. Searight, ~ o l u m b i a F a l l s , Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : J a m e s C. B a r t l e t t ; H a s h , 0 ' ~ r i e n & B a r t l e t t , K a l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a F i l e d : S u b m i t t e d on ~ r i e f s : June 8 , 1 9 8 9 D e c i d e d : J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 8 9 - - I - / C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. The S e a r i g h t s appeal from an o r d e r o f t h e District Court f o r t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Flathead County, denying t h e i r motion t o v a c a t e judgment and imposing s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e defendant, M r . Cimino. W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motion, and f u r t h e r a s s e s s damages a g a i n s t t h e a p p e l l a n t s pursuant t o Rule 3 2 , M. R.App. P., f o r t h e f i l i n g of an appeal without s u b s t a n t i a l o r reasonable grounds. The S e a r i g h t s p r e s e n t s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r o u r review b u t we f i n d it necessary o n l y t o address t h e i s s u e o f whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y denied a p p e l l a n t s ' motion t o vacate judgment and impose s a n c t i o n s . Because we answer t h i s ques- t i o n a f f i r m a t i v e l y , w e w i l l n o t d i s c u s s t h e remaining i s s u e s r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t s . T h i s c a s e h a s a lengthy h i s t o r y . The S e a r i g h t s i n i t i a t - ed a cause o f a c t i o n a g a i n s t M r . Cimino i n 1981, seeking t o e n f o r c e t h e terms o f a c o n t r a c t f o r deed r e q u i r i n g M r . Cimino t o pay h a l f t h e c o s t o f an a i r s t r i p c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e S e a r i g h t s ' land. On May 1 4 , 1985, judgment was e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e S e a r i g h t s , and on appeal t h i s Court affirmed. S e a r i g h t v. Cimino (1986), 718 P.2d 652, 43 St.Rep. 810. M r . Cimino then sought t o enforce t h e t e r m s o f t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed g r a n t i n g him t h e r i g h t t o use t h e a i r s t r i p . I n J u l y o f 1986, he f i l e d a motion t o cause a p p e l l a n t s t o execute an a i r p o r t easement pursuant t o Rule 70, M.R.Civ.P., which provides i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : I f a judgment d i r e c t s a p a r t y t o execute a convey- ance o f land o r t o d e l i v e r deeds o r o t h e r documents o r t o perform any o t h e r s p e c i f i c a c t and t h e p a r t y f a i l s t o comply w i t h i n t h e time s p e c i f i e d , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e a c t t o be done a t t h e c o s t of t h e d i s o b e d i e n t p a r t y by some o t h e r person appointed by t h e c o u r t and t h e a c t when s o done has l i k e e f f e c t a s i f done by t h e p a r t y . The S e a r i g h t s r e s i s t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion, arguing t h a t t h e previous judgment e n t e r e d d i d n o t c o n t a i n any r e f e r e n c e t o an easement which could be enforced by invoking Rule 70, M. R.Civ. P. The S e a r i g h t s acknowledged d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o use t h e a i r s t r i p a s set f o r t h i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed, b u t argued t h a t t h e g r a n t i n g o f an easement was n o t contemplated e i t h e r by t h e c o n t r a c t o r by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment s o t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s motion should be dismissed. The S e a r i g h t s a l s o requested s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t M r . Cimino under Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t Court h e l d a hearing on t h e motion t o cause t h e execution o f t h e easement, and r u l e d t h a t a w r i t t e n easement needed t o be prepared and recorded. Following a l a t e r hearing on t h e S e a r i g h t s ' motion f o r s a n c t i o n s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t an easement had been prepared and recorded by t h e S e a r i g h t s ' a t t o r n e y . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e motion f o r s a n c t i o n s "appears t o be harassment on M r . S e a r i g h t ' s p a r t . " The c o u r t denied s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t M r . Cimino, and on i t s own motion, imposed s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e S e a r i g h t s of $100. The S e a r i g h t s then f i l e d a motion t o a l t e r o r amend t h e judgment, arguing t h a t Rule 7 0 , M.R.Civ.P., was i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o e n f o r c e a judgment g r a n t i n g an easement which never e x i s t - ed. The D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e motion, reasoning t h a t : The t h r u s t o f P l a i n t i f f s ' argument is t o r e l i t i g a t e t h e i s s u e o f easement. Since p l a i n t i f f s have a l r e a d y signed and recorded t h e easement t h e p o i n t i s moot. On appeal, t h i s Court r e f u s e d t o d i s t u r b t h e a c t i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s i n p u t t i n g t h e easement on record. S e a r i g h t v. Cimino (Mont. 1988), 748 P.2d 948, 45 St.Rep. 46. This conclusion was reached based upon t h e absence of a record of t h e hearing on M r . Cimino's motion t o r e q u i r e execution o f an easement, and t h e absence o f proof o f whether an o r d e r was i s s u e d o r whether t h e p a r t i e s w e r e simply t o l d t o work it o u t . T h i s Court a l s o affirmed t h e levying o f s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e S e a r i g h t s , b u t r e f u s e d t o award damages f o r a f r i v o l o u s appeal under Rule 32, M.R.App.P. 748 P.2d a t 952. On March 10, 1989, a f t e r appointing himself a s counsel, M r . S e a r i g h t f i l e d a motion t o v a c a t e judgment and impose s a n c t i o n s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The motion requested t h a t t h e c o u r t , pursuant t o i t s a u t h o r i t y under Rule 12 ( h ) ( 3 ) , M.R.Civ.P., and Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P., v a c a t e a l l o r d e r s , d e c r e e s , and judgments e n t e r e d i n t h e a c t i o n a r i s i n g from M r . Cimino's motion t o cause a p p e l l a n t s t o execute an a i r p o r t easement. M r . S e a r i g h t contended t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court l o s t s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c a s e a f t e r e n t r y and s a t i s f a c t i o n of i t s f i n a l judgment i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n and had no power t o o r d e r t h e g r a n t i n g o f an easement. M r . S e a r i g h t a l s o requested t h a t s a n c t i o n s be imposed a g a i n s t M r . Cimino pursuant t o Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P. The District Court summarily denied t h e motion. I t is from t h i s d e n i a l t h a t t h e S e a r i g h t s appeal. I Did t h e District Court p r o p e r l y deny a p p e l l a n t s ' motion t o v a c a t e judgment and impose s a n c t i o n s ? Appellants contend t h a t t h e District Court was without s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and determine t h e ease- ment i s s u e because f i n a l judgment had been rendered i n t h e p r i o r d e c i s i o n and t h a t judgment included no r e f e r e n c e t o an easement which could have been enforced under Rule 70, M.R.Civ.P. Appellants argue t h a t a l l o r d e r s and judgments rendered a s t o t h e easement i s s u e must be vacated, c i t i n g Crawford v . P i e r s e (1919), 56 Mont. 371, 375-76, 185 P. 315, 317-18: I t i s elementary t h a t when t h e judgment-roll upon i t s f a c e shows t h a t t h e c o u r t was without j u r i s d i c - t i o n t o render t h e p a r t i c u l a r judgment, i t s pro- nouncement i s i n f a c t no judgment. I t cannot be enforced. No r i g h t can be d e r i v e d from it. A l l proceedings founded upon it a r e i n v a l i d and i n e f - f e c t i v e f o r any purpose. . . . An affirmance of such a judgment on appeal cannot make it v a l i d . ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . I n response, M r . Cimino argues t h a t a p p e l l a n t s a r e merely attempting t o r e l i t i g a t e t h e easement i s s u e , and t h a t because they have a l r e a d y had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e , t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a ap- p l i e s t o preclude f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n o f t h i s m a t t e r , c i t i n g Wellman v. Wellman (1982), 198 Mont. 42, 643 P.2d 573: Once t h e r e h a s been f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t an i s s u e f o r j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n - i n a given proceeding, including t h o s e i s s u e s t h a t p e r t a i n t o a c o u r t ' s - - j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e determination o f t h e c o u r t i n t h a t proceeding must be accorded f i n a l i t y a s t o a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d o r which f a i r l v could have been r a i s e d , e l s e judgments might b g a t t a c k e d piecemeal and without end. ( ~ m ~ h a s i s s u p p l i e d ) . 643 P.2d a t 575, c i t i n g Royal Coachman Color Guard v . Marine Trading ( M e . 1979), 398 A.2d 382, 384. Contrary t o a p p e l l a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t Wellman i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e we conclude t h a t it c o n t r o l s . I n Wellman, a p p e l l a n t s attempted t o a t t a c k a judgment rendered t e n y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e appeal, contending t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court exceeded i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n by g r a n t i n g more r e l i e f than was sought i n t h e pleadings. I n a f f i r m i n g t h e lower c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l , t h i s Court s a i d : P l a i n t i f f s had a f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o l i t i g a t e t h e voidness i s s u e i n 1971 when t h e y f i r s t moved t o set a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. They f a i l e d t o do so. The d o c t r i n e o f res j u d i c a t a i s founded upon t h e g e n e r a l l y recognized p u b l i c p o l i c y t h a t t h e r e must be some end t o l i t i g a t i o n . The end f o r t h e p l a i n - t i f f s i n t h i s c a s e occurred more than t e n y e a r s ago when they f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e i r f i r s t motion t o set a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , a p p e l l a n t s had t h e same o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e t h e voidness i s s u e when M r . Cimino f i r s t f i l e d h i s motion t o cause execution o f an a i r p o r t easement. They d i d i n f a c t o b j e c t t o t h e District C o u r t ' s a b i l i t y t o enforce an easement under Rule 70, M.R.Civ.P., i n t h e i r motion t o a l t e r o r amend t h e judgment following d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e easement i s s u e . They f u r t h e r r a i s e d t h e s p e c i f i c i s s u e of l a c k of s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e i r P e t i t i o n f o r Rehearing a f t e r t h i s C o u r t ' s opinion i n t h e m a t t e r . Because t h e sub- s t a n c e o f a p p e l l a n t s ' challenge t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a c t i o n s h a s remained t h e same, it i s apparent they a r e merely attempting t o r e l i t i g a t e i s s u e s which have a l r e a d y been decided by invoking d i f f e r e n t l a b e l s by which t o c o n t e s t t h e proceedings, one o f which i s s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . W e w i l l n o t allow a p p e l l a n t s ' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e i r claim t o h i n d e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f res j u d i c a t a , and t h e prevention o f p r o t r a c t e d l i t i g a t i o n . Furthermore, t h e District C o u r t ' s handling o f t h e ease- ment i s s u e was compelled by t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s themselves. While it i s n o t c l e a r from t h e record whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered an easement be g r a n t e d o r t o l d t h e p a r t i e s t o "work it o u t , " t h e District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s were uncooperative and t h a t M r . Cimino's a t t o r n e y was l e f t w i t h t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s : (a) to do nothing and have this matter con- tinue indefinitely without resolution; (b) to breach the Code of Professional Re- sponsibility and communicate directly with Mr. Searight; or (c) to seek relief through the Court. The District Court found that Mr. Cimino's attorney chose the only alternative that was reasonably available to him, name- ly, to file a motion asking the court to compel an easement be drawn and recorded. Even if the relief sought by Mr. Cimino was beyond the scope of the original pleadings in the first proceeding, we hold that a jurisdictional challenge to the court's actions will nevertheless be barred by the doctrine of res judicata under this Court's holding in Wellman. We affirm the Dis- trict Court's order denying appellants' motion to vacate and impose sanctions. Because we conclude that this appeal is taken without substantial or reasonable grounds and that appellants are merely attempting to relitigate the easement issue, we impose damages in the amount of $500 pursuant to Rule 32, M.R.App.P. Affirmed.