Opinion ID: 880394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Bill of Costs

Text: Section 25-10-501, MCA, reads in pertinent part: The party in whose favor judgment is rendered and who claims his costs must deliver to the clerk and serve upon the adverse party, within 5 days after the verdict or notice of the decision of the court or referee or, if the entry of the judgment on the verdict or decision be stayed, then before such entry is made, a memorandum of the items of his costs and necessary disbursements in the action or proceeding, which memorandum must be verified by the oath of the party, his attorney or agent, or the clerk of his attorney ... Verdict was rendered March 22, 1988, and judgment was entered upon it on March 30, 1988. Grover received the judgment on April 4, 1988, and filed its bill of costs on April 5, 1988. The District Court struck Grover's bill as untimely because it was not filed within five days after the verdict. We agree. Grover relied on Funk v. Robbin (1984), 212 Mont. 437, 689 P.2d 1215, wherein this Court allowed costs under section 25-10-501, MCA, the bill for which was filed long after the decision of the court was rendered. That case quoted Poeppel v. Fisher (1977), 175 Mont. 136, 572 P.2d 912, as follows: This Court has held that the five-day period allowed for filing of a memorandum of costs and disbursements is computed from the day the court enters judgment, not from the day the court orally announces its decision. Poeppel, 572 P.2d at 915. Funk and Poeppel are not controlling on this issue because they involved bench trials. The statute and the case at bar both deal with jury verdicts. By taking matters under advisement, the trial judge has more latitude than a jury as to when it will render its decision. Thus, the announcement of a decision by the bench is not comparable to the jury rendering its decision. Lastly, we note that even in Funk and Poeppel, the bill for costs was filed prior to entry of the judgment. Grover's bill was properly stricken. In summary, we conclude the errors committed by the trial court regarding the general verdict form are not reversible error and therefore, affirm the District Court's judgment based on the jury verdict. We find no error in the District Court's other evidentiary rulings. Likewise, the trial court's rulings awarding prejudgment interest and denying Grover's bill of costs were correct. The District Court's judgment is affirmed in its entirety. SHEEHY, WEBER, McDONOUGH, HARRISON, GULBRANDSON and HUNT, JJ., concur.