Opinion ID: 1182366
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: variance between the judgment and the demand

Text: Defendant argues that the relief granted in the judgment improperly varies from that demanded in the complaint. The question is not free from difficulty, in view of the express provisions of Rule 54(c), W.R.C.P., providing in pertinent part: A judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment. Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings. (Emphasis supplied.) Previous decisions of this Court [16] holding that relief different from that demanded in the prayer of the complaint may be granted if it is justified by the allegations and proof, are not entirely determinative of this question because judgment in those cases was entered after trial. Without detraction of those holdings as to completely contested cases, we do not think that we should ignore the plain import of the above quoted rule as to default cases. Concerning the federal counterpart of and model for our rule, it is said in 10 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2663, p. 99, that the theory of the rule is to permit the defendant to determine from the original pleading whether he wants to expend the money and trouble to defend it, that it is unfair to have the complaint lead defendant to believe that only a certain type of relief was being sought and then, after he has sought to limit the scope of the judgment by not appearing, to give a different type of relief. It is further said that unless the parties have voluntarily litigated an issue not within the pleadings, the court should consider only those issues. In sum, then, a default judgment may not extend to matters outside the issues raised by the pleadings or beyond the scope of the relief demanded. A judgment in a default case that awards relief that either is more or different in kind from that requested originally is null and void and defendant may attack it collaterally in another proceeding. If a judgment may be collaterally attacked, it surely may be attacked upon appeal for noncompliance with Rule 54(c). Most of the cases dealing with this question involve a complete failure of the defendant to make an appearance, while in this case defendant attacked the complaint for insufficiency, he filed an answer denying the material allegations, and he supported his legal position in argument upon the motions to dismiss and for default. It does not appear that the complaint was at any time amended, although the record does show that both defendant's counsel and the attorney general considered the complaint as attacking the filings in the county clerks' offices upon a broad basis. Thus, in a brief submitted to the trial court in support of motion to dismiss the complaint it is said: The Complaint goes so far as to seek this Court to declare invalid those mining claims which the Defendant has filed on federal lands, state lands, municipal lands, and the lands of private individuals. The Complaint is not completely clear that it is this broad but I bring to the Court's attention a letter written by the Plaintiff   . The letter so referred to and attached to the brief is addressed to defendant and states that you perhaps have mistaken the import of the complaint we have filed against you because we have alleged invalid staking of all claims filed by you within the State of Wyoming, whether upon Federal, State, or private lands. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that whatever the technical wording of the prayers of the complaint, defendant was aware that plaintiff sought to invalidate the filings as to all claims and not just those filed on state or privately owned lands. While this would not justify a complete departure from the demand of the complaint [17] we do not think that the prayers must be considered as a straitjacket depriving the judgment of any manner of flexibility, as might be the situation in a complete default. The State's concern was and is with the thousands of pieces of paper being improperly filed in the county clerks' offices, as clearly shown by the complaint, and one explicit prayer is that defendant be required at his own expense to file a release of claim to any and all claims which may have been invalidly filed by him within the State of Wyoming   . A determination that claims should be released would necessarily involve a determination that there was a fatal defect in the filing, so we consider that a declaration of invalidity is by any reasonable interpretation a part of that prayer. We hold, then, that upon the allegations and prayer of the complaint, established by the default of the defendant and the further proof contained in the affidavits submitted by the attorney general, it was proper for the trial court to declare that any and all certificates of location, whether filed on federal, state, county, or privately owned lands, were invalid. However, we think it was unnecessary and improper for the trial court to qualify its declaration as to the invalidity of the filings with the proviso, unless the defendant shall prove unto this Court that said placer mining claims were filed pursuant to complete compliance with the laws of the State of Wyoming. Having found defendant to be in default, the allegations of the complaint true, and that the location certificates were invalid, the declaration that they were a nullity should not itself be annulled by leaving the case open to further proof. We have considered defendant's contention that the proviso rendered the judgment indefinite and not dispositive of the issues, [18] but we believe that the elimination of this proviso leaves no question as to the finality of the judgment. The further order of the court that defendant is enjoined from filing any placer claims within the state unless such claims are established and filed pursuant to complete compliance with the laws of the state of Wyoming, was probably consistent with the allegations of the complaint and affidavits, but we find no prayer for such relief except as to lands of the state of Wyoming, its citizens and municipalities, and to enjoin the defendant generally was outside the scope of that demand. By the same token the injunction against filing assessment affidavits unless defendant should prove to the court that he filed the claims pursuant to complete compliance with the laws of the state, is held to be outside the prayer of the complaint and invalid. We therefore direct that the judgment of the court below be modified by striking from the fourth paragraph of the order any and all provisions indicating that defendant may appear and present proof to that court designed to show that his claims have been established and filed pursuant to compliance with the laws of the state of Wyoming, and striking the fifth and sixth paragraphs of such order in their entirety. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.