Opinion ID: 878763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue 1 Error in refusing to vacate the default judgment?

Text: In Lords v. Newman (Mont. 1984), 688 P.2d 290, 41 St.Rep. 1793, we stated the standard of review where a District Court has refused to set aside a default: ... [W]here the trial court has refused to set aside the default, the proper standard of review is that no great abuse of discretion need be shown to warrant a reversal... . It is clear that the issue of abuse of discretion must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Lords, 688 P.2d at 294. The general rule is that the neglect of an attorney is attributable to his client so that mere attorney neglect is insufficient to set aside a default. However, we recognized in Lords that we have found attorney neglect excusable on the part of the client upon the proper showing. Lords, 688 P.2d at 295. Therefore, in reviewing the decision of the lower court we need not find a great abuse of discretion, but we must find some abuse and a proper showing to excuse neglect in order to set aside the default. In Lords the attorney had totally abandoned his clients and this Court concluded that it would be unconscionable to charge the client with the attorney neglect. We held that the trial court abused its discretion in not setting aside the default where the attorney completely abandoned the clients who had diligently tried to correct the court's action. Lords, 688 P.2d at 296. The facts in the present case are distinguishable from Lords. In Lords, the attorney abandoned his clients after he made a general appearance on behalf of some of the clients who had not been served with process and had not authorized such general appearance. In the present case, we find a continuing effort on the part of the attorney for plaintiffs to obtain an answer from defendant's attorney, Morin. This included writing letters, filing notices and telephoning, all to no avail. However, Morin did not abandon his clients and leave the state. He received notices and talked on the phone on behalf of the clients, but failed to do anything in response to the numerous requests by opposing counsel. Moreover, once default had been entered on March 22, in eight days attorney Morin moved to vacate that default. As demonstrated in the telephone conversation of March 15, attorney Morin intended to file an answer, but again postponed the preparation and filing of that pleading. That procrastination is a type of neglect which is properly attributable to a client, and which we distinguish from the abandonment in Lords. This is not a factual situation where reasonable minds might conclude that the conduct of attorney Morin was excusable. We find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's conclusion that the conduct was not excusable neglect. We affirm the action of the District Court in refusing to vacate the default judgment.