Opinion ID: 2351923
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Untimely Response to Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: [¶ 30] On October 5, 2010, Nalee as the trustee, filed a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(c) to dismiss the Trust from any kind of proceeding in the probate court. In footnote 1 this pleading provides, in pertinent part that: The Trust notes that the [Personal Representative] has previously responded to these claims by Mr. Poland in this Probate Case in a Motion for Summary Judgment filed with the Court on September 1, 2010 and served by hand delivery on Mr. Poland's counsel that day. Mr. Poland has never filed any response to that motion [for summary judgment] and no longer has the right to do so pursuant to W.R.C.P. 6(c), which required Mr. Poland to file any response to that motion on or before September 21, 2010. [Emphasis added.] [¶ 31] Poland's response to the September motion for summary judgment and three opposing affidavits were not filed until October 7, 2010. As previously explained, the late filing was not made by leave of the court. W.R.C.P. 6(c)(1) requires the responsive pleading to be filed in twenty days plus three days for mailing. Poland's response was clearly filed out of time. Furthermore, there is no indication that a request to enlarge the time to respond was made by Poland or his attorney. W.R.C.P. 56(e) provides in pertinent part, If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. [¶ 32] On October 13, 2010, Nalee filed an Objection and Motion to Strike Untimely Response Pleading and Affidavits by Terrance Poland. The pleading alleges that Poland's response to the motion for summary judgment was untimely and the court could not consider it. The motion to strike the affidavits and response filed by Poland was granted by the district court. [¶ 33] A motion to consolidate the two cases was filed by Poland on October 7, 2010. Nalee's opposition to the motion to consolidate was also filed. The motion to consolidate was denied. [¶ 34] On October 20, 2010, Nalee also filed a motion to dismiss and alternatively for summary judgment in the probate court to dismiss her individually from any kind of party respondent or defendant from the proceeding in the probate court. [¶ 35] As to the creditor's claim filed by Poland in the probate proceeding on March 23, 2010, it was accompanied by, inter alia, a letter from a local contractor estimating the value of improvements at $125,500.00 made over a four-year period to the second floor of Dan's Western Wear Building on Main Street in Sheridan. The claim was made for $125,000.00 on the basis of quantum meruit, implied contract, and promissory estoppel. A Rejection of Creditor's Claims was filed by the estate and mailed on June 22, 2010 by Nalee to Poland. An affidavit of mailing was attached to the rejection of the creditor's claim filed against the estate.