Title: Becker v. Roothe

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

184 Kan. 830 (1959)
339 P.2d 292
CHARLES BECKER, Appellee,
v.
HAROLD ROOTHE, Appellant.
No. 41,424

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 16, 1959.
Jack O. Bowker, of McPherson, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Russ B. Anderson, of McPherson, argued the cause and Archie T. MacDonald, also of McPherson, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SCHROEDER, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court refusing to open a default judgment on the ground that it was irregularly obtained.
An action for damages as a result of an intersection collision was filed on May 23, 1958. The defendant was personally served on May 27, 1958, and on June 24, 1958, one day after the answer was due, a motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed and a default judgment taken against the defendant in the total amount requested, $379.28 and costs. A praecipe for execution was filed October 6, 1958, the opening day of the following term, and on November 1, 1958, application to open the default judgment was filed by the defendant in the form of a motion stating that he had a meritorious defense to the plaintiff's cause of action. A full answer was attached and filed with the application. At the hearing on the application it was stipulated by counsel that no evidence as to the *832 amount of damages was introduced at the time default judgment was taken. The trial court overruled the application to open the judgment on November 14, 1958, after hearing argument of counsel. It refused to admit or consider evidence tendered as to the amount of damages or the validity of the defense. Appeal was duly perfected from this order.
Two questions are presented:
G.S. 1949, 60-748, insofar as material herein, provides:
It was not until amendment in 1868 that the above statute was made inapplicable to actions on contract for the recovery of money by the addition of the last clause thereto. Prior to this time allegations as to the amount of damages were subject to proof on default in all actions. Early cases in which the foregoing statute was considered concerning proof of damages upon default by the defendant are Ames v. Brinsden, 25 Kan. 746; U. P. Rly. Co. v. Pillsbury, 29 Kan. 652; and Cole v. Hoeburg, 36 Kan. 263, 13 Pac. 275.
The defendant made default, and by his default admitted that everything stated in the petition was true, except the amount of damages. He admitted the plaintiff had a cause of action against him for some amount, ranging from a nominal sum up to $379.38. Defendant admitted that plaintiff ought to recover some amount from him, but the exact amount he did not admit. The amount of damages remained for the plaintiff to prove. Not having introduced any evidence at the time judgment was rendered, the judgment should have been entered for nominal damages only. The court, however, inadvertently and erroneously rendered judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant for the total amount requested, $379.38, without any evidence having been introduced to show the amount of damages sustained.
G.S. 1949, 60-3109, provides:
It is mandatory under the foregoing statute that the plaintiff prove the amount of his damages. (Oil Co. v. Forrester, 79 Kan. 610, 100 Pac. 512.) The applicable portion of the above statute to the facts presently before the court has been italicized, and the trial court should have proceeded under one of the three alternative provisions to assess the amount of damages before entering the default judgment. (See Royse v. Grage, 138 Kan. 779, 28 P.2d 732.)
At common law in an action at law where the defendant failed to appear or answer, the judgment may have been either interlocutory or final. If the amount to which the plaintiff was entitled was liquidated, judgment was given immediately for that amount. If, however, the amount was unliquidated, judgment was given that the plaintiff recover his damages to be assessed. The next step was the issuance of a writ of inquiry directing that a jury be summoned to ascertain the amount of damages due to the plaintiff, but the sheriff, and not the judge, presided over the jury in its task of ascertaining the damages. The common law was summarized in Raymond v. Danbury & Norwalk R.R. Co., 43 Conn. 596, as follows:
*834 The provisions of 60-748, supra, and of 60-3109, supra, are in substance merely a codification of the common law.
In the instant case we are concerned with a final judgment entered by default which was not set aside or vacated at the same term at which it was rendered. The application to open the judgment was first made at a subsequent term. It is clear the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action (damages arising from an automobile collision in McPherson County) and over the parties by reason of personal service upon the defendant in McPherson County. Thus, having jurisdiction, the judgment was not void, however irregular or erroneous some of the court's proceedings may be, or voidable the judgment might be. (Meixell v. Kirkpatrick, 28 Kan. 315.)
In Griggs v. Hanson, 86 Kan. 632, 121 Pac. 1094, it was said:
It has been held where the defendant fails to appear or answer and the plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages, as here, an entry of judgment on default, without any evidence having been introduced to show the amount of damages sustained, is irregular and voidable. (Ames v. Brinsden, supra.) While it is true the action in the Ames case (decided after the 1868 amendment reflected in G.S. 1949, 60-748) was for a breach of promise of marriage, and the court later in Cole v. Hoeburg, supra, held such action to require no proof of damages where the defendant defaults, it being an action on contract, the procedural principle of law for which the Ames case is cited remains sound law. The decision in Oil Co. v. Forrester, supra, bolsters this conclusion. There the defendant appealed from a judgment entered against him in default of an answer, where the only question presented to the court was whether there was evidence to sustain the judgment as to the actual damages. The evidence as to damage was reviewed by the court and held insufficient to show actual damages. It was said the judgment "can not be sustained" and the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.
The judgment, not being void, could not be vacated at any time on motion of a party or any person affected thereby pursuant to *835 G.S. 1949, 60-3009. (See Taylor v. Focks Drilling & Mfg. Corp., 144 Kan. 626, 62 P.2d 903.)
The applicable statutory sections material for our consideration in vacating a voidable judgment after the term at which it was entered, on the ground of irregularity in obtaining such judgment, insofar as pertinent to the issues herein, read:
G.S. 1949, 60-3007:
..............
G.S. 1949, 60-3010:
G.S. 1949, 60-3012:
G.S. 1949, 60-3013:
The foregoing sections of the statute were construed in 1881 in Meixell v. Kirkpatrick, 25 Kan. 13, where a motion was filed to set aside and vacate a default judgment on the ground of irregularity, which we note by reference to the briefs on file in the state library was not for failure to take evidence as to the amount of damages. The correct practice in such cases was said to be as follows:
We have been cited to no cases, no does our research disclose any, in which this court has departed from the broad confines of the foregoing construction of these sections of the code of civil procedure.
Appellee argues that the district court is given discretionary power to correct injustices after the expiration of the term, to be exercised when and if he deemed the exercise of this power advisable under 60-3007, supra. He argues it is hardly conceivable that the legislature intended that a district court should be required to vacate a judgment after term because of some slight "irregularity." Reference by the appellee to the term "may" in the headnote to 60-3007, supra, we pause to note, is no part of the statute.
This section of the statute, 60-3007, supra, gives the district court judicial power to determine the matters specified in the statute. If it could be said the district court in a given situation under this section has judicial power of discretion, it certainly is granted no arbitrary powers.
It is said in the instant case the trial court proceeded under 60-3012, supra, to first decide upon the grounds to vacate the judgment. The existence of a ground to vacate or modify a judgment must first be established. This is illustrated in List v. Jockheck, 45 Kan. 349, 27 Pac. 184, rehearing denied in 45 Kan. 748, 27 Pac. 184. In proceedings to vacate a judgment on the ground of fraud it has been held that legal evidence is required to establish the fraud. (Fullenwider v. Ewing, 30 Kan. 15, 1 Pac. 300.) In Scott v. Johnson et al., 115 Kan. 661, 224 Pac. 41, it was said:
An irregularity has been defined as the failure to observe that particular course of proceeding which, conformable with the practice of the court, ought to have been observed in the case. (Griggs v. Hanson, supra.) An "irregularity" within the meaning of G.S. 1949, 60-3007, Third, authorizing vacation of a judgment for irregularity in obtaining it, is the want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of procedure, and consists either in omitting to do something that is necessary for the due and orderly conduct of a suit, or doing it in an unreasonable time or improper manner. (Dearborn Motors Credit Corporation v. Neel, 181 Kan. 598, 313 P.2d 243; and Babb v. City of Wichita, 172 Kan. 416, 241 P.2d 755.)
Upon the foregoing sections of the code of civil procedure and decisions relating thereto, failure to introduce evidence as to the amount of damages in a tort action at the time default judgment was taken is an irregularity under G.S. 1949, 60-3007, Third. In the instant case the facts necessary to determine whether an irregularity had been established were stipulated by the parties. There was no factual determination for the trial court to make. The parties stipulated that no evidence was presented as to the amount of damages at the time the default judgment was entered. The trial court had no alternative except to recognize that an irregularity had been established under the applicable sections of the code of civil procedure as construed by this court. Under these circumstances the trial court's order overruling the appellant's application to open the default judgment, after refusing to admit or consider evidence tendered as to the amount of damages or the validity of the defense, was simply an arbitrary decision and thus erroneous.
Was the defendant (appellant) entitled to offer proof of the validity of his defense as a requisite to obtaining a trial upon the merits?
The provisions of 60-3007 and 60-3013, supra, must be construed together. The court should not vacate a judgment on an application made under 60-3007, Third, supra, until the party applying therefor, if he be the defendant, shall have set up a defense to the action, as provided in 60-3013, supra. (Schuler v. Fowler, 63 Kan. 98, 64 Pac. 1035.)
*838 In Griggs v. Hanson, supra, it was said:
A ruling to the same effect is Kackley State Bank v. Nichols, 162 Kan. 648, 179 P.2d 186; and see Ames v. Brinsden, supra, and Moore v. Zeman, 109 Kan. 566, 200 Pac. 270.
The defendant below did all that he was required to do pursuant to the foregoing statutes. He attached a full answer to his motion alleging that he had a valid defense to the plaintiff's cause of action. The trial court, however, refused to admit or consider evidence as to the amount of damages or the validity of the defense alleged in hearing the defendant's application to vacate and set aside the judgment.
The appellee relies on McCaslin v. Busch, 183 Kan. 755, 332 P.2d 256, in which a default judgment was entered in a damage action without the introduction of evidence as to the amount of damages. The defendant filed a motion to vacate and set aside the default judgment on the ground of irregularity in obtaining it. The motion was denied. No appeal was taken from this order. Subsequent motions attacking the judgment all met with failure.
The distinguishing feature in the McCaslin case is the failure to appeal from the order of the trial court. While the decision of the trial court on the first motion attacking the default judgment was erroneous, the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and thus power to enter an erroneous decision as well as a correct decision. Upon failure to appeal from the order overruling the motion such order became final. (See Griggs v. Hanson, supra.) In the instant case the defendant has taken an appeal from the order overruling his motion to set aside and vacate the judgment.
The factual situation indicated in the case of Ames v. Brinsden, supra, is closely analogous. That was an action for breach of promise of marriage. The defendant was in default and the court rendered judgment for the amount claimed without any evidence being introduced. At a later term the defendant moved to have the judgment set aside on account of the irregularity. The motion was allowed and appeal to this court followed. This court held the judgment should have been set aside only conditionally, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to introduce evidence, and the judgment *839 should then have been set aside, modified or affirmed in accordance with the evidence. There, however, the only ground for the motion to set aside and vacate the judgment was the technical ground that the judgment was irregularly obtained. No allegation or pretense was made that the defendant had any valid defense or any partial defense to the plaintiff's action. No showing or pretense was made that the amount of the judgment was too great. The court there said:
In the case before us the irregularity was established by stipulation and the appellant made proper application to open the judgment within three years as required by G.S. 1949, 60-3008. The trial court at the hearing on the motion should have permitted the appellant to make a showing, by evidence, that the appellee was not damaged to the extent of $379.28. Upon proper showing by the appellant, the trial court should then conditionally vacate the judgment and order the case set down for hearing upon the evidence as to the amount of damages, with the further order that unless the appellee (plaintiff) should introduce his evidence and make a showing that he was damaged to the amount of $379.28, as to which damages the appellant is entitled to defend, the judgment should be vacated, or at least modified in accordance with the evidence.
In other words, the trial court under the circumstances here presented must look to the nature of the irregularity, after proper showing of a defense has been made at the hearing on the motion to vacate the judgment, to determine what the appellant is entitled to defend. The only issue giving rise to the irregularity was failure *840 of the plaintiff below to prove the amount of damages. By his failure to answer the defendant below admitted everything in the petition except the amount of damages. Therefore, it is only upon the issue of damages that appellant is entitled to defend.
It has been said that a party who is summoned in a course of a regular judicial proceeding, either personally or by publication, in a court having jurisdiction, will have his day in court, and must appear and take the proper steps to protect his interests within the time allowed for that purpose. Opportunity may not knock again at his door. (Brenholts v. Miller, 80 Kan. 185, 186, 101 Pac. 998.)
We hold upon the facts and circumstances here presented that the appellant is not entitled to offer proof of the validity of his defense as a requisite to obtaining a trial upon the merits, but may show only proof of his defense as to the amount of damages as a requisite to obtaining a trial on the issue of damages.
We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in denying appellant's application to vacate and set aside the judgment and in refusing to hear evidence concerning appellant's defense as to the amount of damages. The judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions to proceed in accordance with the views herein expressed.
ROBB, J., concurs in the result.
SCHROEDER, J., (dissenting in part):
I respectfully dissent from the portion of the foregoing opinion which limits the defendant in his defense.
In my opinion the defendant on the hearing of the motion to vacate the judgment should have been permitted to show that he had a valid defense to the cause of action on its merit. Upon proper showing the trial court should then have conditionally vacated the judgment and ordered issues upon the merits made up by the filing of proper pleadings (provided they were not already filed). Thereupon the case should have been tried upon such issues in the same manner as though no judgment had ever been rendered in the case, following the procedure outlined in Meixell v. Kirkpatrick, 25 Kan. 13, which was decided on an irregularity under G.S. 1949, 60-3007, Third.
To hold otherwise ignores the specific provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-3013, which in part provide: "A judgment shall not be vacated on motion ... until it is adjudged that there is a valid defense *841 to the action on which the judgment is rendered; ..." (Emphasis added.) In my opinion this statute does not permit the subjective approach to the nature of the ground which permits vacation of a judgment after term. Once the ground is satisfactorily determined by the trial court on an objective basis, the provisions of 60-3013, supra, apply with full force. Defense to the action cannot be construed as a defense to some lesser issue embraced within the action. No distinction has ever been made by this court heretofore as illustrated by all the decisions cited in the opinion for the court.
Justice Valentine, speaking for the court in Ames v. Brinsden, 25 Kan. 746, undertook masterfully to clarify the procedure under circumstances and facts presented in the instant case. While it is true that some of the statements made in the opinion are dictum the opinion fully covers the situation here presented. On the point here in question, though dictum, the following was said:
In my opinion the foregoing is the proper procedure.
It is only proper that a party who takes a default judgment through some irregularity should be subjected to the penalty which forces him to present the case fully on the merits after timely application is made to vacate the judgment pursuant to the code of civil procedure. This would command orderly procedure in the courts and tend to foster respect for the law.
PRICE, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.