Title: STATE EX REL BOHRER v DISTRICT COU
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13563
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 17, 1976

NO. 13563 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1976 STATE O F MONTANA, on the r e l a t i o n of S E Y M O U R M. BOHRER, MILLER M U T U A L FIRE INSURANCE C O M P A N Y , a corporation; and HOME INSURANCE C O M P A N Y , a corporation, Relators, THE DISTRICT COURT O F THE S E C O N D JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R T H E COUNTY O F SILVER BOW; and THE HON. A R N O L D OLSEN, Judge thereof, ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relators: Poore, McKenzie, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, Butte, Montana Urban L. Roth argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Gary L. Graham argued, Missoula, Montana Henningsen, Purcell and Genzberger, Butte, Montana James E. Purcell argued, Butte, Montana Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana Schulz, David and Warren, Dillon, Montana Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg and Matteucci, Great F a l l s , Montana Raymond F. Koby Jr. argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: October 27, 1976 Decided: NOV 1.7 1976 Filed: ii"\i I , ,Yib M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a n o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein r e l a t o r s seek an appropriate w r i t t o overturn t h e respondent c o u r t ' s order denying t h e i r motion t o withdraw a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n an a c t i o n f i l e d i n respondent c o u r t e n t i t l e d : "Seymour M. Bohrer; Miller Mutual F i r e Insurance Company, a corporation; and Home Insurance Company, a corporation, P l a i n t i f f s , vs. Steve Clark, d/b/a Steve Clark Construction; Shaefer Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Inc.; L e v i t t Construction Systems, Inc., a corporation; The Majestic Company, a corporation, and Morgan Drive Away, a cor- poration, Defendants." Counsel was heard ex p a r t e and t h e matter taken under advisement. Thereafter an order f o r an adversary hearing was issued. Such hearing was held, b r i e f s i n opposition f i l e d , a l l counsel heard i n o r a l argument, and t h e matter sub- mitted f o r decision. It appears t h a t Bohrer f i l e d t h e above mentioned a c t i o n i n h i s own name f o r l o s s sustained i n t h e amount of $61,639.67 a g a i n s t t h e defendants. O n J u l y 23, 1975, The Majestic Company moved t o compel Bohrer t o j o i n as necessary p a r t i e s any insur- ance company who was p a r t i a l l y o r e n t i r e l y subrogated t o @is l o s s . Miller Mutual F i r e Insurance Company and Home Insurance Company had paid $51,693 of t h i s l o s s , and pursuant t o t h e motion a second amended complaint was f i l e d including t h e s e i n s u r e r s as p l a i n t i f f s . Thereafter t h e s e p l a i n t i f f i n s u r e r s , r e l a t o r s here, moved t o withdraw a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f , a t which t i m e t h e case had n o t been set f o r a p r e t r i a l hearing nor jury t r i a l . O n September 23, 1976, t h e respondent d i s t r i c t judge issued an order denying t h e motion t o withdraw. A f f i d a v i t s had been f i l e d along with t h i s motion and i n which t h e i n s u r e r s had r a t i f i e d t h e a c t i o n of Bohrer and agreed t o be bound by t h e outcome of such l i t i g a t i o n . The p a r t i e s t o t h i s o r i g i n a l proceeding a l l agree t h a t t h e language of S t a t e ex r e l . Nawd's T.V. and Appliance, Inc. v. D i s t r i c t Court, Mont. , 543 P.2d 1336, 32 S t . Rep. 1 2 2 2 (1975), is determinative t h a t a p a r t i a l l y subrogated insurer can e l e c t t o be bound by r a t i f i c a t i o n , joinder, o r sub- s t i t u t i o n . Furthermore, t h e e l e c t i o n i s h i s alone t o make and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s given no d i s c r e t i o n i n deciding whether compliance with Rule 17, M.R.Civ.P., w i l l be by joinder o r r a t i f i c a t i o n . The defendants i n t h e a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t argue t h a t r e l a t o r s should not p r e v a i l here f o r two reasons: (1) The motion t o withdraw came too l a t e s i n c e t h e i n s u r e r s elected t o become p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n t h e second amended complaint, and they a r e bound by t h a t e l e c t i o n . ( 2 ) Retroactive e f f e c t should not be given t o t h e Nawd's T.V. r u l i n g . The c r u c i a l language of Rule 17, M.R.Civ.P. s t a t e s : " * * * N o a c t i o n s h a l l be dismissed on t h e ground t h a t it i s not prosecuted i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t u n t i l a reasonable t i m e has been allowed a f t e r objection f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of commence- ment of t h e a c t i o n by, o r joinder o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f , t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t ; and such r a t i f i c a t i o n , joinder, o r s u b s t i t u t i o n s h a l l have t h e s a m e e f f e c t a s i f t h e a c t i o n had been commenced i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . " (Emphasis supplied.) A s can e a s i l y be seen, t h e p l a i n import of t h i s language gives t h e real p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t t h e option of binding himself by r a t i f i c a t i o n , joinder, o r s u b s t i t u t i o n . This option w a s - not granted by t h e Nawd's T.V. decision but by Rule 17, M.R. Civ.P., when it was amended i n 1968. This r u l e does not provide any language s t a t i n g t h a t once a real party i n i n t e r e s t has chosen one of t h e t h r e e possible means of binding himself t o t h e a c t i o n , he is barred from chang- ing h i s mind and proceeding i n another manner. A s pointed o u t i n Nawd's T.V. t h i s e l e c t i o n belongs t o t h e real p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , and t h e only a u t h o r i t y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is t o make s u r e one of t h e t h r e e , r a t i f i c a t i o n , joinder, o r sub- s t i t u t i o n , i s adhered t o a f t e r objection has been made under Rule 17. This option a s t o which means t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t wishes t o proceed belongs s o l e l y t o him. W e hold t h a t o r d i n a r i l y he is e n t i t l e d t o change h i s mind and proceed under any of t h e t h r e e means, even though he has made a previous e l e c t i o n , as long a s such a c t i o n on h i s p a r t i s prompt and has no p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t on any p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . I n t h i s c a s e t h e p a r t i a l l y subrogated i n s u r e r s had joined a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n t h e second amended complaint, b u t p r i o r t o t h e scheduling of a p r e t r i a l hearing o r t r i a l . They f i l e d a f f i d a v i t s of r a t i f i c a t i o n and moved t o withdraw as p a r t i e s plain- t i f f . Through such r a t i f i c a t i o n t h e s e i n s u r e r s w e r e bound t o t h e a c t i o n under Rule 17, M.R.Civ.P. The defendants a r e not subjected t o p o s s i b l e double jeopardy, and w e perceive no preju- d i c e t o defendants due t o r e l a t o r s ' a c t i o n . Therefore t h e order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is vacated. A new order s h a l l i s s u e granting t h e motion of r e l a t o r s . This opinion s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r 1 f o r t h e P guidance of t h e d i s t r i c t co W e concur: /