NO. 96-606 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1997 

AGAMERICA, FCB, successor in interest 

to the Farm Credit Bank of Spokane, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

JAMES C. MEYERS; UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, acting through the Farmers 

Home Administration, United States 

Department of Agriculture; DANNY 

HANSARD; FREDA HANSARD, f/k/a FREDA 

MEYERS; and NORTHWEST FARM CREDIT 

SERVICES, ACA., 

Defendants and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Hill, 

The Honorable John Warner, Judge Presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

James C. Meyers, Pro Se, Helena, Montana 

For Respondent: 

John P. Paul, Alexander, Baucus, Taleff & Paul, 

Great Falls. Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: January 16, 1997 

Decided: February 25, 1997 
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3 (c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

James C. Meyers, appearing pro se, appeals from an order of 

sale of real property issued by the Twelfth Judicial District 

Court, Hill County. We affirm. 

The nine issues which Meyers sets forth in his brief may be 

consolidated into two claims: that the judgment and decree of 

foreclosure issued by the United States District Court, Great 

Falls, Montana, on June 11, 1996, was invalid; and that the 

District Court's Order of Sale is invalid. 

In June 1996, the United States District Court, Great Falls, 

Montana, issued a judgment and decree of foreclosure against James 

C. Meyers and others, in favor of AgAmerica, FCB, on mortgages of 

real property located in Hill County, Montana. Two months later, 

AgAmerica filed with the District Court an exemplified, certified 

copy of the federal court's judgment and decree, pursuant to the 

Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, Title 25, Chapter 

9, part 5, MCA, and moved the District Court to enter an order of 

sale directed to the Sheriff of Hill County. On August 23, 1996, 

having determined that notice and other procedural requirements had 

been met, the District Court ordered the Hill County Sheriff to 

2 
notice for sale and to sell the property to satisfy the federal 

court judgment. 

Meyers filed a notice of appeal of the order of sale on August 

28, 1996. He then moved to stay the sale of the property pending 

appeal. The District Court denied that motion on September 20, 

1996, based upon Meyers' failure to furnish a supersedeas bond as 

required by Rule 7(b), M.R.App.P., and "a meritless motion and 

appeal." The sale of the property was held on October 10, 1996. 

In the following weeks, Meyers moved this Court for an order 

setting aside the sale and for an emergency stay of the lower court 

proceedings pending this appeal. We denied those motions. 

Meyers claims that the federal court judgment is invalid 

because it is in violation of federal and state statutes, the 

documents upon which it is based are invalid, and it allows 

deficiency and attorney fees in error. He claims that the order of 

sale issued by the District Court is invalid because it "fails to 

stipulate areas where federal statutes should prevail," it failed 

to instruct on proper notice procedure, and it allows deficiency 

judgment. 

AgAmerica responds by raising the threshold argument that 

Meyers' appeal has become moot because the foreclosure sale has 

been held, citing Turner v. Mountain Engineering and Const. Inc. 

(1996), 276 Mont. 55, 915 P.2d 799. AgAmerica points out that 

Meyers did not post a supersedeas bond and obtain a stay of the 

proceedings at the District Court pending appeal. 

3 
The procedure for obtaining a stay of judgment pending appeal 

in a civil action is set forth at Rule 7(b), M.R.App.P.: 

Upon service of notice of appeal, if the appellant 

desires a stay of execution, the appellant must, unless 

the requirement is waived by the opposing party, present 

to the district court and secure its approval of a 

supersedeas bond which shall have two sureties or a 

corporate surety as may be authorized by law. 

Meyers did not post a supersedeas bond, nor is there anything in 

the record to indicate that AgAmerica waived that requirement. 

Hence, the District Court did not grant his motion for stay of 

execution of judgment. 

Generally speaking, loss of property through 

foreclosure is involuntary and will not give rise to a 

waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment. For 

example, if the property has been foreclosed upon but not 

yet sold, it may still be possible for this Court to 

fashion a remedy. However, the underlying question we 

must confront in determining whether an appeal is moot is 

not whether the sale was involuntary, but, rather, 

whether or not this Court is in a position to grant 

effective relief. 

. . 

As this Court recognized in Martin Dev. Co., when 

there is no effective relief this Court can fashion, the 

appeal is moot. Appellants allowed foreclosure sale to 

proceed, did not stay the proceedings, and did not post 

a supersedeas bond. As has been recognized, there is a 

danger of dismissal for mootness and, thus, a special 

need for seeking a stay when the sale of property is 

ordered and is not enjoined. A party who is confronted 

with a judgment ordering a foreclosure sale and who 

allows the foreclosure sale to proceed runs the risk that 

his appeal will thereby be rendered moot. 

. . . [Wlhen compliance [with a judgment] is 

involuntary, as in most foreclosure actions, the appeal 

is not barred or waived, but may, nevertheless, be moot 

to the extent that this Court cannot grant any effective 

relief. 

Turner, 915 P.2d at 804-05 (citations omitted). 

4 
In this case, because the foreclosure sale has been held, we 

conclude this appeal is moot. Because of that conclusion, we do 

not reach the issues raised by Meyers. This appeal is dismissed. 

P$&.y~.& 

Juskices