Opinion ID: 2072758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Fourth-party Claims of Capitol

Text: As noted above, of the fourth parties only Larry and Ollie Hork have appealed the judgment belowthe remaining fourth parties are in default, not having responded to the complaint against them. The only defense raised by the Horks is one of timeliness of Capitol's fourth-party claim under Rule 14.01, Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule requires service of a third-party complaint within 45 days of service of the original complaint, but its extension to the fourth-party context is obvious. Metram served Capitol with its third-party complaint on March 28, 1974, and Capitol did not serve the Horks with a fourth-party complaint until May 24, 1974, 57 days later. The Horks did not file an answer to this complaint, but handed an answer to the trial judge at the time of trial. The Horks first argue that failure to comply with the time limit of Rule 14.01 raises a jurisdictional question. As is specifically stated by Rule 82, however, the rules of procedure do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the district courts. Rule 14 in particular is designed to prevent multiple litigation over issues which properly belong in a single case, and its time limitation provision is intended to prevent undue delay or unfairness caused by bringing in third parties at a late stage in the litigation. Lack of compliance with the rule may under some circumstances require severance of the third-party claim, but does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the parties. In any event it must be said that the Horks effectively waived their right to raise this defense by not filing responsive pleadings until trial, some 9 months after service of the fourth-party complaint upon them. The district court's finding of liability of all fourth parties is affirmed, but its judgment is reduced to $12,601.02 (Capitol's liability to Metram) plus $3,066 fees and costs, for a total of $15,667.02.