No. 89-544 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

NELLIE G. TAYLOR, as Personal 

~epresentative of-the Estate 

of Jack Leslie Taylor, Deceased, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

JOHN NEIL HONNERLAW, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Flathead, 

The Honorable Leif B. Erickson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Linda Osorio St. Peter, Attorney at Law, Missoula, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

H. James Oleson, Oleson Law Firm, Kalispell, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: March 16, 1990 

Decided: April 24, 1990 
Justice Diane G. Barz delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

John Neil Honnerlaw, defendant, appeals the decision of the 

District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, 

granting plaintiff Nellie G. Taylor's motion for summary judgment 

and denying Honnerlaw's subsequent llmotion for reconsideration." 

We affirm. 

The two essential issues raised on appeal are: 

1. whether the District Court erred in granting Nellie 

Taylor's motion for summary judgment; and 

2. whether the District Court erred in denying Honnerlawls 

I1motion for reconsideration. 'I 

Jack Leslie Taylor died intestate on May 3, 1988. On May 5, 

1988, Nellie G. Taylor was appointed by the District Court for the 

Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, as personal 

representative fo; the estate of Jack Leslie Taylor. On October 

17, 1988, Nellie Taylor filed a complaint in the District Court, 

alleging that John Neil Honnerlaw Ittook various items . . . of 

importance, that belonged to Jack Leslie Taylor, and now should 

belong to the estate." In particular, Nellie Taylor requested the 

return of twelve to thirteen guns which Honnerlaw had in his 

possession and refused to return to the estate. Honnerlaw claimed 

that these guns were given to him as a gift by the now-deceased 

Jack Leslie Taylor. 

On March 14, 1989, Nellie Taylor filed a motion for summary 

judgment under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., arguing that no issue of fact 
existed and that as a matter of law Jack Taylor did not give the 

guns to Honnerlaw as a gift. The District Court granted Nellie 

Taylor's motion for summary judgment, statingthat Honnerlaw failed 

to submit an opposing affidavit that would raise any issue of fact. 

On June 16, 1989, Honnerlaw filed a ''motion for reconsideration." 

The District Court denied Honnerlaw's motion on July 21, 1989. 

The first issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court 

erred in granting Nellie Taylor's motion for summary judgment. 

This issue is not properly before this Court. The notice of 

entry of judgment granting summary judgment to Nellie Taylor was 

filed June 2, 1989. Honnerlaw had thirty days from this date to 

file a notice of appeal. Rule 5(a) (1), M.R.App.P. Honnerlaw's 

notice of appeal, however, was not filed until August 7, 1989. We 

therefore do not have jurisdiction to entertain this issue on 

appeal. 

The second issue raised on appeal is whether the District 

Court erred in denying Honnerlaw's "motion for reconsideration." 

In Honnerlaw's "motion for reconsiderationI1' filed June 16, 

1989, Honnerlaw argues that he did not understand that he had to 

present affidavits to oppose the motion for summary judgment. He 

therefore filed an affidavit from John B. Dudis along with his June 

16, 1989 motion. The affidavit stated that Jack Taylor "was 

desirous of making certain gifts or bequests to Mr. Honnerlaw and 

others, and left me with the impression that he would be doing so." 

The District Court denied Honnerlawls June 16, 1989 motion on July 

21, 1989, stating that Honnerlaw failed to submit an affidavit in 
support of his position and furthermore he failed to comply with 

the provisions of Rule 60, M.R.Civ.P., in seeking relief from a 

summary judgment . 

A motion for reconsideration is not a post-judgment motion 

allowed by the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. Anderson v. 

Bashey (Mont. 1990), 787 P.2d 304, 305, 47 St.Rep. 200, 202. 

Honnerlaw based his ttmotion for reconsiderationtt on the fact that 

he did not understand that he had to submit an affidavit to oppose 

a motion for summary judgment. We are unable to equate Honnerlawts 

motion based on his lack of understanding of the Montana Rules of 

Civil Procedure with any post-judgment motion allowed under these 

rules. We therefore hold that the District Court did not err in 

denying Honnerlawts June 16, 1989 motion. 

In consideration of Honnerlaw appearing pro se throughout the 

majority of the proceedings, however, we also note that Dudis's 

affidavit is still not sufficient to prove that Jack Taylor 

intended to give Honnerlaw his guns. The affidavit stated that 

Jack Taylor ttwas desirous of making certain gifts or bequests to 

Mr. Honnerlaw and others, and left me with the impression that he 

would be doing so.It The affidavit therefore merely indicated that 

Jack Taylor would be making certain gifts or bequests, but had not 

yet done so. In addition, the affidavit does not state that these 

gifts would be the guns. 

Affirmed. ,/dkSJ? Justice fm 
We concur: 

Justices 

J /B