96-561

 No. 96-561

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

WRIGHT OIL & TIRE CO.,

an Idaho Corporation,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

STEVE GOODRICH, d/b/a WEST GATE 

TEXACO and WEST YELLOWSTONE 

SNOWMOBILE RENTALS, INC.,

 Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Gallatin,

 The Honorable Thomas A. Olson, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellants:

 Gerald J. Neely, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana

 For Respondent:

 Holly B. Brown, Attorney at Law, Bozeman, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: April 3, 1997

 Decided: August 5, 1997

Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-561%20Opinion.htm (1 of 6)4/16/2007 11:37:43 AM
96-561

Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.

 Steve Goodrich, doing business as Westgate Texaco (Goodrich), and West

Yellowstone Snowmobile Rentals, Inc. (WYSR) appeal from the order of the Eighteenth

Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, granting the motion for relief from 

judgment

filed by Wright Oil & Tire Company (Wright Oil). We reverse.

 We address the following issues on appeal:

 1. Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider this appeal?

 2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in granting Wright Oil's motion 

for

relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P.?

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 Wright Oil is an Idaho corporation in the business of providing wholesale

petroleum products to other businesses. On November 9, 1994, Wright Oil filed a

complaint against Goodrich to collect amounts allegedly due for wholesale fuel 

purchased

by Goodrich. In his answer to the complaint, Goodrich denied owing the amount stated

and alleged as an affirmative defense that the products purchased from Wright Oil 

were

for the sole use and benefit of WYSR and that Wright Oil had failed to serve the 

proper

party. Additionally, in discovery responses, Goodrich stated that the Westgate 

Texaco

station was wholly owned by WYSR. Thereafter, Wright Oil amended its complaint to

add WYSR as a defendant and allege that it also owed Wright Oil for the wholesale 

fuel. 

WYSR answered the amended complaint and denied that it owed Wright Oil the amount

stated.

 A bench trial was held, following which the District Court entered findings of 

fact

and conclusions of law. The court concluded that Goodrich owed Wright Oil

$25,474.54, plus finance charges, and that no evidence of record indicated the 

existence

of either a contractual relationship between WYSR and Wright Oil or the alleged

relationship between WYSR and Goodrich. The District Court entered judgment against

Goodrich only on March 26, 1996, and notice of entry of judgment was filed on April

2, 1996.

 On May 24, 1996, Wright Oil filed a Rule 60(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P., motion for relief

from the judgment. It sought relief from the District Court's denial of a judgment 

against

WYSR and requested consideration of evidence in Wright Oil's possession, but not

presented at trial, which allegedly established that WYSR was the party responsible 

for

payment of the amounts due. The District Court granted Wright Oil's motion and

ordered an evidentiary hearing, permitting Wright Oil to reopen its case regarding

whether WYSR should be held liable for the amounts due. Goodrich and WYSR appeal.

 DISCUSSION

 1. Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider this appeal?

 As a threshold matter, Wright Oil argues that this Court does not have 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-561%20Opinion.htm (2 of 6)4/16/2007 11:37:43 AM
96-561

jurisdiction

to entertain Goodrich's and WYSR's appeal because the District Court's order granting

Wright Oil's motion for relief from judgment is not a final judgment from which an

appeal may be taken pursuant to Rule 1(b), M.R.App.P. We disagree.

 Rule 1(b), M.R.App.P., provides, in part, that

 [i]n civil cases a party aggrieved may appeal from a judgment or order,

 except when expressly made final by law, in the following cases:

 (1) From a final judgment entered in an action or special proceeding

 commenced in a district court . . . .

 (2) From an order granting a new trial; or . . . from any special

 order made after final judgment . . . .

In this case, the District Court entered judgment on its findings of fact and 

conclusions

of law on March 26, 1996, thus entering a final determination of the parties' 

rights. See

Rule 54(a), M.R.Civ.P. That was the "final judgment" in the action for Rule 1(b)(1)

purposes and it is clear that Goodrich's and WYSR's appeal was not taken from that 

final

judgment. Rule 1(b)(2), M.R.App.P., however, authorizes an appeal from a special

order made after final judgment, and we have held that an order granting a motion for

relief from judgment is a special order made after final judgment which is appealable

under that Rule. See Roberts v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (1996), 276 Mont.

225, 227, 915 P.2d 872, 873. We conclude, therefore, that Goodrich's and WYSR's

appeal from the District Court's order granting Wright Oil's motion for relief from

judgment is properly before us and we have jurisdiction to entertain it.

 2. Did the District Court err in granting Wright Oil's motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P.?

 Wright Oil's Rule 60(b)(6) motion was premised on its assertion that Goodrich 

and

WYSR improperly changed their position regarding WYSR's liability for the debt in 

their

posttrial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Wright Oil argued that

Goodrich's answer to the complaint and answers to interrogatories, WYSR's answer to

the amended complaint, and the agreed facts and issues of law in the pretrial order

misled it into believing that WYSR's liability for the debt was not an issue at 

trial and,

as a result, it did not present evidence regarding the relationship between Goodrich 

and

WYSR.

 After reviewing the parties' briefs on Wright Oil's motion and the additional

evidence submitted by Wright Oil, the District Court determined that it would be

inequitable to allow the judgment absolving WYSR from liability to stand. On that 

basis,

the court granted Wright Oil's motion for relief from the judgment and ordered an

evidentiary hearing on the issue of WYSR's liability.

 Our review of a district court's ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from

judgment depends on whether or not the judgment was set aside. Karlen v. Evans

(1996), 276 Mont. 181, 185, 915 P.2d 232, 235. Where, as here, the district court 

set

the judgment aside and the appellant requests that it be reinstated, reversal is 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-561%20Opinion.htm (3 of 6)4/16/2007 11:37:43 AM
96-561

warranted

only upon a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Karlen, 915 P.2d at 235 

(citation

omitted). 

 Relief is appropriate under Rule 60(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P., only in extraordinary

circumstances which go beyond those covered by the first five subsections of the 

rule. 

Falcon v. Faulkner (1995), 273 Mont. 327, 333, 903 P.2d 197, 201 (citation omitted). 

A motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) must contain more than just a request 

for

a rehearing or a request that the court change its mind. Lussy v. Dye (1985), 215 

Mont.

91, 93, 695 P.2d 465, 466. "It must be shown that something prevented a full

presentation of the cause or an accurate determination on the merits and that for 

reasons

of fairness and equity redress is justified." Lussy, 695 P.2d at 466. 

 Goodrich and WYSR contend that the District Court abused its discretion in

granting Wright Oil's motion for relief from judgment because Wright Oil failed to

establish that the circumstances of the case were so extraordinary as to warrant 

relief

under Rule 60(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P. They argue that WYSR did not misrepresent its

position regarding its liability for the amounts due and, thereby, prevent Wright 

Oil from

fully presenting its case, as Wright Oil asserted; rather, Wright Oil simply failed 

to

provide testimony or other evidence at trial proving its allegations against WYSR. We

agree.

 At the outset, we observe that "[t]he initial burden of producing evidence as 

to a

particular fact is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on 

either

side." Section 26-1-401, MCA. Additionally, if a party asserts a claim for relief, 

it has

the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is

essential to that claim. Section 26-1-402, MCA.

 Wright Oil contends that it did not present evidence of WYSR's liability because

it presented its case in reliance on Goodrich's representations in his answer to the 

original

complaint and his responses to discovery that WYSR was responsible for the debt. 

Goodrich clearly did assert that WYSR was the entity liable for the amounts due to

Wright Oil; it is not unusual for a defendant in an action to assert that it is not 

the

responsible party. That assertion by Goodrich, however, cannot be equated to an

admission by WYSR that it was liable for the debt. Wright Oil amended its complaint

to allege that both Goodrich and WYSR were liable and, absent an admission of 

liability

from each defendant, it was required to prove its allegations as to each defendant. 

Section 26-1-402, MCA. WYSR never admitted that it was responsible for the debt and,

thus, Wright Oil's reliance on Goodrich's statements to that effect was misplaced.

 When Wright Oil amended its complaint to include WYSR as a named defendant

and alleged that WYSR was responsible for the debt, it was required to produce 

evidence

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-561%20Opinion.htm (4 of 6)4/16/2007 11:37:43 AM
96-561

establishing that WYSR was actually liable for the amounts due. Sections 26-1-401 

and

26-1-402, MCA. Wright Oil's burden in this regard would be lifted only in the event

WYSR conceded that it was liable for the debt. In its answer to the amended 

complaint,

WYSR denied the allegation that it was indebted to Wright Oil for the amount stated. 

This denial effectively put that allegation into issue. See Rule 8(b), M.R.Civ.P. 

Moreover, the record does not reflect that WYSR admitted liability thereafter for the

amounts allegedly due. Indeed, according to the pretrial order, one of the stated 

issues

for the District Court to determine was "[w]ho the proper party Defendant is, i.e., 

Steve

Goodrich or West Yellowstone Snowmobile Rentals, Inc., or both." Since WYSR's

liability for the debt remained at issue, the burden remained on Wright Oil, 

pursuant to

 26-1-401 and 26-1-402, MCA, to produce evidence at trial in support of its claim 

that

WYSR was liable. It failed to do so.

 Wright Oil also contends that neither WYSR nor Goodrich provided any proof at

trial --or even raised the issue--that WYSR was not liable for the debt and, 

therefore, it

was unfairly surprised by Goodrich's and WYSR's proposed finding of fact that WYSR

was not liable. This argument is without merit. As discussed above, Wright Oil 

added

WYSR as a defendant and alleged that WYSR was liable. As a result, Wright Oil had

the burden of proving its case against WYSR. See 26-1-401, MCA. No proposed

finding that WYSR was not liable should have "surprised" Wright Oil, given its 

failure

to present a case against WYSR, and such a proposed finding could not be "unfair" 

under

these circumstances.

 Nor, as Wright Oil argues, did Goodrich and WYSR improperly change their legal

position with respect to WYSR's liability by offering a proposed finding of fact that

Wright Oil offered no evidence regarding the nature or ownership of WYSR or that

WYSR ever contracted with Wright Oil for the purchase of the petroleum products at

issue. A party's proposed findings of fact must be supported by the evidence 

presented

and are submitted to a trial court to assist in its determination. See Rule 52(a),

M.R.Civ.P. They are not a statement of a party's legal position on the issues. 

Here, the

proposed finding properly reflected that Wright Oil failed to present evidence in 

support

of its claim against WYSR. Moreover, Wright Oil had Goodrich's discovery response,

to the effect that WYSR was the liable entity because the petroleum products 

purchased

from Wright Oil were for the sole use and benefit of WYSR, in its possession long 

before

trial; that it neither obtained additional information for introduction into 

evidence nor

elicited testimony about it at trial cannot be blamed on the parties defendant.

 We previously have held that the conduct of an opposing party in handling a case

may justify relief from a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) when such conduct 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-561%20Opinion.htm (5 of 6)4/16/2007 11:37:43 AM
96-561

precludes

the party requesting relief from adequately presenting its case. Maulding v. Hardman

(1993), 257 Mont. 18, 847 P.2d 292. There, although Maulding's attorney contacted

Hardman's insurance company prior to filing suit to request payment of Maulding's

medical bills allegedly incurred as a result of an accident involving Hardman's 

car, the

attorney made no further contact with the insurance company and failed to respond to 

the

insurance company's subsequent inquiries. Maulding, 847 P.2d at 297. The insurance

company was not informed that a complaint had been filed against Hardman or that a

default judgment had been entered for Hardman's failure to appear until well over a 

year

after Hardman's default had been entered. Maulding, 847 P.2d at 297. We held that 

the

manner in which Maulding's attorney handled the case resulted in prejudice to the

insurance company and created extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under 

Rule

60(b)(6). Maulding, 847 P.2d at 297.

 In the present case, neither Goodrich nor WYSR acted so as to intentionally

mislead Wright Oil or prevent it from adequately presenting its case. Early in the 

case,

Goodrich took the position that WYSR was liable. WYSR took the opposite position. 

Thereafter, Goodrich chose not to rely on his affirmative defense and to risk the 

entry

of judgment against him. That Wright Oil mistakenly believed there was no issue as 

to

WYSR's responsibility for the amounts due did not result from any improper conduct by

Goodrich or WYSR. Nor did any conduct by the defendants, or either of them, prevent

Wright Oil from adequately presenting its case. Thus, the "extraordinary 

circumstances"

which may warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P., do not exist in this case.

 We conclude that Wright Oil failed to establish the existence of extraordinary

circumstances which justified relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6),

M.R.Civ.P. We hold, therefore, that the District Court manifestly abused its 

discretion

in granting Wright Oil's motion for relief from judgment.

 Reversed.

 /S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-561%20Opinion.htm (6 of 6)4/16/2007 11:37:43 AM