Opinion ID: 1190838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment Without a Motion for Such

Text: Appellants also question the ability of the district court to enter a summary judgment in favor of appellee American National Bank absent a motion for such. In its order granting motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded in part: There exist no issues of material fact and Plaintiffs Joe and Gloria Gemelli and American National Bank are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Their Motion for Summary Judgment are granted and Defendant Jane Rasmussen'[s] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. There exist no issues of material fact regarding Plaintiff American National Bank's right to judgment. Though it has not moved for Summary Judgment, the Court may grant Summary Judgment to a non-moving party when it is entitled to the same and to not do so would result in the waste of judicial resources. We agree. Although the entry of a summary judgment absent a motion therefor should be a rare occurrence, the entry of a summary judgment in favor of a party plaintiff who moved for such and a failure to do likewise in favor of another party plaintiff who did not move for such, but who is subject to the same material facts and legal issues, would result in additional proceedings on issues already decided in the matter and a waste of judicial resources. In this case, motions for summary judgment were made by (1) appellees Joe and Gloria Gemelli against appellant Newman, (2) appellees Joe and Gloria Gemelli against appellant Rasmussen, (3) appellant Rasmussen against appellees Joe and Gloria Gemelli, and (4) appellant Newman against appellee American National Bank. As noted, the case of Newman v. American National Bank was consolidated by the district court with that of Newman and Rasmussen v. Joe and Gloria Gemelli.