Opinion ID: 880633
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Can bifurcated counterclaims be disposed of without a hearing?

Text: Separate or bifurcated trials can be ordered by a district court pursuant to Rule 42(b), M.R.Civ.P.: The court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues. Rule 42(b) is essentially the same as Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except the federal rule provides that separate trials shall always preserve inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States. In 1966 the federal rule was amended by adding a condition or ground for a grant of separate trials: when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. F.R.Civ.P., 42(b); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2381 (1971). However, no difference in result exists between the federal rule and its Montana counterpart when an order for a separate trial is considered. State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. District Court (1985), 217 Mont. 106, 116, 703 P.2d 148, 155. Yetter argues that his counterclaims, which were bifurcated and reserved for trial by jury, were never addressed by the district court. Often the reason for separate trials pursuant to Rule 42(b) is that one issue may be dispositive of other claims in the case, as noted by Wright & Miller in their discussion of Rule 42(b), F.R.Civ.P.: If a single issue could be dispositive of the case, and resolution of it might make it unnecessary to try the other issues, separate trial of that issue may be desirable to save the time of the court and reduce the expenses of the parties. 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra § 2388, at 280. In this case, the parties entered into a compromise agreement regarding the contract, and the court, after reviewing the stipulation, entered final judgment. The Stipulation Pursuant to Judgment provides: That upon payment as decreed then the action shall be dismissed and the parties will be governed by this stipulation and decree and by the contract where it has not been modified and that contract is hereby confirmed and satisfied. A compromise agreement, when the basis for a final judgment, bars all preexisting claims and causes of action. Robinson v. First Security Bank of Big Timber (1986), 224 Mont. 138, 141, 728 P.2d 428, 430. By signing the stipulation, Yetter waived any further claims of breach of contract occurring prior to judgment, including bad faith claims or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Thus, the settlement of the declaratory action was dispositive of Yetter's counterclaims, and a hearing was unnecessary.