No. 89-459 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

MONTANA DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER, 

a nonprofit corporation, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsEDDIE DOHERTY AND LOLA DOHERTY, 

husband and wife, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable John McCarvel, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Elizabeth A. Best; Best Law Offices, Great Falls, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

Sharon Anderson, Staff Attorney, Montana Deaconess, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: Dec. 1, 1989 

Decided: February 8, 1990 

1.. ,. - . . 

." 

. ' Clerk ..;.:4,.a.r. 
Justice Diane G. Barz delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Eddie and Lola Doherty appeal from an order of the District 

Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, denying 

their motion to amend the court's findings of fact, conclusions of 

law and order. We affirm. 

Appellants received extensive medical treatment from 

respondent Montana Deaconess Medical Center during 1986. 

Appellants refused to pay in full the $8,325.99 balance remaining 

on their bill and respondent filed suit. Following negotiations 

between the parties' attorneys, appellants executed a confession 

of judgment on October 29, 1986, acknowledging their indebtedness 

to respondent in the amount of $8,325.99. The parties further 

stipulated to a payment schedule and a periodic review of 

appellants1 financial status by respondent. 

Appellants substantially complied with their payment 

obligations. In February of 1989, respondent, pursuant to an 

analysis of appellants' most recent financial statement showing a 

material change in available income, requested that appellants 

increase the amount of their payments to $200 per month. When 

appellants denied this request, respondent obtained a writ of 

execution and recovered $643 from appellantst checking account in 

March of 1989. 

Appellants filed a petition to vacate judgment or stay further 

execution on April 3, 1989. Appellants alleged in their petition 

that appellant Eddie Doherty was under the influence of mind 

2 
altering drugs when he signed the confession of judgment. 

Furthermore, appellants claimed respondent's unjustifiable 

execution on their checking account coupled with the threat of 

further execution caused serious detriment to Eddie Doherty's 

health. 

Following hearing on June 5, 1989, the District Court issued 

the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order: 

Findings of Fact 

As appears from the record and the testimony 

in this case, [appellants] signed a confession 

of judgment dated October 29, 1987, which was 

filed with this court on November 2, 1987. A 

stipulation setting forth payment 

arrangements, signed by attorneys for 

[respondent] and [appellants] was filed 

simultaneously. [Respondent] and [appellants] 

were represented and advised by counsel at all 

times relevant. 

[Appellants] did not comply with the terms of 

paragraph 4 of the Stipulation, in that they 

failed to submit the complete and accurate 

financial information to [respondent] every 

six months and they failed to make the 

increased payment required due to a material 

change in [appellants1] net income as 

evidenced by the financial statement submitted 

February 1989. As a result of the 

[appellants'] failure to comply with the terms 

of paragraph 4, [respondent] caused a writ of 

execution to issue in accordance with 

paragraph 6 of the Stipulation. The sheriff 

levied on $643.00 from [appellants'] bank 

account. 

Conclusions of Law 

1. [Respondent] obtained judgment in the 

amount of $8,325.99 plus interest and costs 

against [appellants] pursuant to the 

confession of judgment filed November 2, 1987. 

2. [Appellants] are not entitled to 

relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 
60 (b) (1) , 60(b) (2) or 60(b) (3) M.R.Civ.P. as 

more than sixty days had passed between the 

entry of judgment and the filing of the 

petition. 

3. [Appellants] are not entitled to 

relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 

60 (b) (4) , 60 (b) (5) or 60 (b) (6) as the evidence 

present'ed is insufficient to support relief 

for any of those reasons. 

4. [Appellants ] motion (petition) was 

not made within a reasonable time as it was 

filed more than seventeen months after the 

entry of judgment. 

5. The confession of judgment operates 

as res judicata in this case and is conclusive 

as to all claims which were in existence 

related to the subject matter of this case. 

Order 

It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed 

that [appellants1] Petition to Vacate 

Judgement (sic) or Stay Further Execution is 

denied. The judgment entered in this matter 

may be enforced. 

Appellants appeal from the District Court's denial of their 

motion to amend the above findings, conclusions and order denying 

their petition to vacate the judgment against them. We affirm. 

Rule 52 (b) , M.R. Civ. P., permits district courts, upon motion 

of either party, to amend findings of fact and modify judgments 

accordingly. Nonetheless, on appeal, we will assume as correct the 

findings of the District Court if such are buttressed by 

substantial evidence. ~eridian Minerals Co. v. ~icor ~inerals, 

Inc. (1987), 228 Mont. 274, 283, 742 P.2d 456, 461. The transcript 

of the instant proceedings reveals that appellants were the only 

witnesses. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial 

credible evidence supports the findings of the District Court. 
We likewise affirm the lower court's conclusions of law. The 

District Court concluded that appellants were not entitled to 

relief from their confession of judgment under any of the grounds 

set forth in Rule 60(b), M.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b) requires that 

parties move for relief within 60 days from entry of judgment if, 

as in this case, the basis of their claim is mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise, excusable neglect or fraud. Once the 60 day period has 

passed and absent a reasonable delay, district courts may properly 

deny amendment. In re the Marriage of Waters (1986) , 223 Mont. 183, 

187, 724 P.2d 726, 729. Appellants filed their petition to vacate 

on April 3, 1989, one year, five months and one day after 

respondent filed their confession of judgment. Appellants offer 

no good reason for their delay. We affirm the District Court Is 

denial of appellants' motion to amend its order denying their 

petition to vacate the judgment against them. 

Counsel for appellants interjects numerous collateral issues 

in her brief. The dispositive issue on appeal is the propriety of 

the District Court's refusal to vacate the judgment confessed by 

appellants and entered by respondent. We may on appeal review only 

those issues decided by the ~istrict Court, and, absent an abuse 

of discretion, we will not reverse its ruling. Wyman v. DuBray 

Land Realty (Mont. 1988), 752 P.2d 196, 200, 45 St.Rep. 621, 625. 

Counsel for appellants should further note that this Court may 

review the entire district court record on appeal. Having done so 

in the instant case, we find no evidence of fraud, collusion, 

misrepresentation or deceit on the part of counsel for respondent 
in any proceeding before this Court or the court below. 

Allegations of this nature are quite serious and should not be made 

lightly. certainly such accusations are no substitute for 

substantive legal arguments. The District Court properly denied 

appellantst motion for sanctions against counsel for respondent. 

Affirmed. 

- -- A 

T 

Justice / . i 

@PJustices