Title: LEWISTOWN PROPANE CO v UTILITY BU
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13218
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 3, 1976

No. 13218 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 LEWISTOWN PROPANE C O M P A N Y , A Corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, UTILITY BUILDERS INC., A Corporation and CITY O F LEWISTOWN, A Montana Municipa 1 Corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W, Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Johnson and Foster, Lewistown, Montana Robert L, Johnson argued, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: Smith, Emmons, B a i l l i e and Walsh, Great F a l l s , Montana William L. B a i l l i e argued and James R. Walsh, argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Alexander, Kuenning, Miller and Ugrin, Great F a l l s , Montana Edward C. Alexander argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: May 24, 1976 Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. In this cause a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by respondents on the ground that appellant failed to timely file notice of appeal as required by statute. The record discloses: On June 12, 1975, the district court of Fergus County, Hon. Bernard W. Thomas, Judge presiding, entered judgment in favor of respondents, Utility Builders, Inc. and the City of Lewistown. On July 13, 1975, notice of entry of judgment was mailed to plaintiff and appellant, Lewistown Propane Company. On June 19, 1975, appellant submitted a proposed motion for an additional ten days to file "* * * post trial motions herein and in which to serve and file 9 ; * * motion to retax costs herein." The district court granted this motion on June 20, 1975, subject to Rule 6 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. On July 7, 1975, appellant served notice by mail of its motion for new trial. Respondents countered by filing on July 11, 1975, motions to strike on the basis the motion for new trial was untimely, or in the alternative, to continue hearing on appellant's motion. On July 23, appellant filed two motions: ( 1 ) under Rule 60 (b) ( 1 ) and Rule 60 ( b ) ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P., for relief from the effect of failure to timely file and serve motion for new trial; ( 2 ) under Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., for an extension of time in which to file notice of appeal. The district court granted appellant's motion for relief under Rule 60 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., on August 11, 1975, denying on the merits the motion for new trial. Appellant's second motion for an extension of time in which to file notice of appeal was deemed moot and not ruled upon. On August 13, 1975, appellant filed notice of appeal. The only issue presented is whether appellant f i l e d timely notice of appeal. The issue i s c l e a r l y controlled by Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P., which s t a t e s i n pertinent p a r t : "The time within which an appeal from a judgment o r an order must be taken s h a l l be 30 days from the entry thereof, except t h a t i n cases where service of notice of entry of judgment i s required by Rule 77(d) of the Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure the time s h a l l be 30 days from the service of notice of entry of judgment, but i f the S t a t e of Montana, o r any p o l i t i c a l subdivision thereof, o r an o f f i c e r o r agency thereof is a party the notice of appeal s h a l l be f i l e d within 60 days from the entry of the judgment o r order o r 60 days from the service of notice of the entry of judgment. * JC *." (Emphasis supplied.) no There can beldoubt one of the respondents, the City of Lewis- town, a Montana municipal corporation, i s a p o l i t i c a l subdivision of the s t a t e of Montana. A r t i c l e X I , 1972 Montana Constitution; Dietrich v. City of Deer Lodge, 124 Mont. 8, 218 P.2d 708; S t a t e ex r e l . Great F a l l s Housing Authority v. City of Great F a l l s , 110 Mont. 318, 100 P.2d 915. However, respondents contend t h a t the s i x t y day provision f o r f i l i n g notice of appeal, a s contemplated by Rule 5, M.R.App. Civ. P., i s meant t o apply only t o s i t u a t i o n s where the s t a t e , a p o l i t i c a l subdivision thereof, o r an o f f i c e r o r agency thereof i s the party appealing. We do not construe Rule 5 so narrowly. Nothing i s said i n Rule 5 as t o what position the s t a t e , i t s p o l i t i c a l subdivisions, agencies, o r o f f i c e r s must occupy on appeal f o r the s i x t y day r u l e t o apply. A l l t h a t i s required i s t h a t some party t o the action be a s t a t e o f f i c e r , s t a t e agency, the s t a t e i t s e l f o r a p o l i t i c a l subdivision thereof. Therefore, as long a s t h i s requirement i s s a t i s f i e d , any party wishing t o appeal t h e judgment o r order i n t h a t action has s i x t y days i n which t o f i l e notice of appeal. Believing Rule 5 t o be c l e a r on i t s face, we do not f e e l compelled t o c i t e any further l e g a l authority f o r the position t h a t appellant i n the instant case had s i x t y days t o f i l e notice of appeal. The question then becomes whether appellant acted within the prescribed s i x t y day period. Notice of entry of judgment was mailed by respondents on June 13, 1975. For purposes of calculating the s i x t y days, the notice of entry of judgment became e f f e c t i v e on June 16, 1975, pursuant t o Rule 6(e), M.R.Civ.P. Appellant f i l e d notice of appeal on August 13, 1975, two days before the s i x t y day time period expired. Thus notice of appeal was timely f i l e d . The motion of respondents t o dismiss appeal is denied. W e Concur: Hon. Gordon Bennett, ~ i s m c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison.