Title: MORTENSEN CONSTRUCTION CO v BURL
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85-296
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 6, 1985

N o . 85-296 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 MORTENSEN CONSTRUCTION CO., a n d GLEN A. MORTENSEN, i t s P r e s i d e n t , P l a i n t i f f s a n d R e s p o n d e n t s , -vs- BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., D e f e n d a n t a n d A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , In a n d f o r the C o u n t y o f C a s c a d e , The H o n o r a b l e J o h n M c C a r v e l , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : Thomas S p e n c e a r g u e d , BN R a i l r o a d C o . , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r R e s p o n d e n t : L a r r y J o h n s o n ; James Gray & M c C a f f e r t y , G r e a t F a l l s , Blon t a n a P a t r i c k S u l l i v a n a r g u e d ; W i n s t o n & C a s h a t t , S p o k a n e , W a s h i n g t o n S u b m i t t e d : S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , 1985 D e c i d e d : November 6 , 1 9 3 5 .L_ C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e F r a n k B. M o r r i s o n , Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . D e f e n d a n t B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , I n c . , a p p e a 1s t h e J a n u a r y 2 8 , 1 9 8 5 , judgment i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f M o r t e n s e n C o n s t r u c t i o n Company. P l a i n t i f f ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a s u n t i m e l y i s g r a n t e d . On J a n u a r y 2 8 , 1 9 8 5 , judgment w a s e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f M o r t e n s e n C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. ( M o r t e n s e n ) a n d n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment was m a i l e d t o B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , I n c . (BN). B N t i m e l y f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t a n d m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l o n F e b r u a r y 8 , 1 9 8 5 . P r i o r t o f i l i n g t h e s e m o t i o n s , B N r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r t o p r o v i d e a t r a n s c r i p t of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . Due t o a b a c k l o g o f w o r k , a n d t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r ' s h o s p i - t a l i z a t i o n , n o p o r t i o n s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t w e r e p r o v i d e d t o B N u n t i l May 8 , 1 9 8 5 . N o r u l i n g w a s made o n t h e m o t i o n s , so o n March 2 5 , 1 9 8 5 , b o t h m o t i o n s w e r e deemed d e n i e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. N o e n t r y of t h e deemed d e n i a l s was made i n t h e c o u r t r e c o r d , n o r w a s n o t i c e of s u c h s e n t t o BN. The 30-day t i m e l i m i t o n a p p e a l s commenced o n March 2 5 , 1 9 8 5 , a n d e x p i r e d o n A p r i l 2 4 , 1 9 8 5 . T h e r e a f t e r , B N c o u n s e l f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t o n May 9 , 1 9 8 5 , i n f o r m i n g t h e District C o u r t h e would amend t h e m o t i o n s o n c e h e r e c e i v e d t h e e n t i r e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . On May 2 7 , 1 9 8 5 , M o r t e n s e n s e n t a l e t t e r t o B N d e m a n d i n g payment o f t h e judgment. On May 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 , B N f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r s t a y o f p r o c e e d i n g s t o e n f o r c e j u d g m e n t . A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o n J u n e 3 , 1 9 8 5 , w h i c h g r a n t e d t h e s t a y o f e x e c u t i o n , y e t a s s e r t e d it n o l o n g e r h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c a s e . B N f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l o n J u n e 3 , 1985. M o r t e n s e n r e s p o n d e d w i t h a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a p p e a l a n d m o t i o n f o r a w a r d o f d a m a g e s , f i l e d J u n e 1 8 , 1 9 8 5 . The i s s u e s w e a d d r e s s a r e : 1 ) whether B N ' s appeal i s timely; and 2) whether Mortensen should be awarded damages and c o s t o f t h i s appeal pursuant t o Rule 32, M. R.App.Civ. P. BN argues t h a t Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P. e n t i t l e d it t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e deemed denial. o f i t s motions. Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P. p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t , t h a t a timely Rule 5 0 ( b ) o r Rule 59 motion suspends t h e running o f t i m e f o r appeal u n t i l an o r d e r i s e n t e r e d upon t h e motion and t h e c l e r k has mailed n o t i c e o f such e n t r y . In making t h i s argument, BN i g n o r e s t h e p a s t d e c i s i o n s of t h i s Court t h a t Rule 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. invokes a mandatory time l i m i t . F i e l d s v. Summit Engineering (Mont. 1982), 653 P.2d 1204, 39 St.Rep. 2057; S e l l v. S e l l (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 630 P.2d 222, 38 St.Rep. 956; L e i t h e i s e r v. Montana S t a t e Prison (1973), 161 Mont. 343, 505 P.2d 1203. The n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n of Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P. a p p l i e s t o o r d e r s upon motions, n o t deemed denia 1s. Rule 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P., a s amended, e f f e c t i v e October 9, 1984, c l e a r l y provides t h a t a p o s t - t r i a l motion i s deemed denied 45 days a f t e r i t s f i l i n g if it has n o t been r u l e d upon. W e f i n d B N ' s reading o f t h e Rules t o be i n c o r r e c t , and d i s m i s s t h e appeal a s untimely. Mortensen a s s e r t s it i s e n t i t l e d t o damages and c o s t of t h i s a p p e a l , pursuant t o Rule 32, M.App.R.Civ.P. W e do n o t agree. The test f o r g r a n t i n g damages under Rule 32, M.App.R.Civ.P. i s whether t h e r e a r e s u b s t a n t i a l and reasonable grounds f o r appeal, and whether t h e appeal was taken merely f o r d e l a y purposes. B N ' s appeal advances a reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between Rule 59 (d) , M.R.Civ.P. and Rule 5 , P4.App.R.Civ.P. While t h e same argument has been p r e v i o u s l y r e j e c t e d by t h i s Court, see L e i t h e i s e r , s u p r a , Rule 59 (d) , P4.R.Civ.P. has s i n c e been amended, and Rule 5 , M.App.R.Civ.P. may be amended in the near future for its lack of clarity. We do not find BN's appeal to be frivolous, and deny Mortensen's motion for damages pursuant to Rule 32, M.App.R.Civ.P. We concur: hief Justice h ' 1\f!P7A6L444& Justice