Court Opinion

ID: 9602009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:51:17.902389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:41.738714
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). I specially concur. This case involves two litigious parties. After more than four years of having had hearings, procedures, pleadings, motions, depositions and affidavits thrown into the storm and stress of the wind’s eye, they ended up with a summary judgment that misled and confused the parties and this Court. The parties and lawyers harassed the district judge and then presented him with a form of judgment to sign which was misleading to plaintiff and this court. “Summary judgment is a lethal weapon, and courts must be mindful of its aims and targets and beware of overkill in its use.” Brunswick Corporation v. Vineberg, 370 F.2d 605, 612 (5th Cir. 1966). Condemnation of use of the summary judgment has long been prevalent in New Mexico with little effect. Waste of time, effort and expense in district court and appellate courts has been a cancer for which no remedy is presently available. Perhaps, summary judgment will be abolished. On September 8, 1976, plaintiff sued defendant for damages for defamation, libel, duress and coercion. Defendant counterclaimed for false and fraudulent representations of various matters, alternatively, in six claims. On January 18, 1980, the trial court entered the following Summary Judgment: The attorneys for the parties having appeared before the Court on December 17, 1979, pursuant to the motion of each party for Summary Judgment, the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised to the circumstances, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Summary Judgment, be and hereby is, entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant, and that each and all of the Defendant’s counterclaims against the Plaintiff be, and they hereby are, dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the lis pendens filed in this cause by the Defendant upon Plaintiff’s property, be immediately released. [Emphasis added.] The procedural events leading up to entry of summary judgment were as follows: (1) On November 7, 1979, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in which it sought an order granting defendant summary judgment against plaintiff as to defendant’s counterclaims. (2) On November 17, 1979, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in which it sought dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims against plaintiff for the reason that no question of fact existed and plaintiff was entitled to have defendant’s counterclaims dismissed as a matter of law. (3) Plaintiff gave notice that his motion for summary judgment would be heard on December 17, 1979. (4) On December 17, 1979, defendant filed a motion that the court reconsider its “oral ruling of December 17, 1979, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.” (5) Defendant’s motion to reconsider was set for hearing on January 18, 1980. Plaintiff gave notice that “Defendant’s pending motion for the Plaintiff’s presentment of Summary Judgment for signature will be heard on January 18, 1980 . . . . ” On January 18, 1980, plaintiff’s summary judgment, presented to the trial court, was signed and filed. The summary judgment was intended to dispose only of defendant’s counterclaims. These counterclaims were buried in the trial court. Plaintiff did not file a motion that summary judgment be “entered for the plaintiff against the defendant”; that plaintiff recover against defendant on three counts of plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s recovery against defendant on plaintiff’s complaint was not an issue to be decided on January 18, 1980. Plaintiff’s complaint remained alive and erect in the district court, is at issue and ready for trial. Defendant’s second point on appeal reads in pertinent part: SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS ERRONEOUSLY ENTERED ON MR. POOR-BOUGH’S COMPLAINT BECAUSE MR. POORBOUGH NEVER MOVED FOR SUCH A SUMMARY JUDGMENT .... [Emphasis added.] The majority opinion states: The trial court ordered Summary Judgment in favor of plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed defendant’s counterclaims .... ****** Disputes involving genuine issues of material facts exist with respect to both the claims and counterclaims. [Emphasis added.] The only issue on this appeal is whether any genuine issue of material fact exists with reference to defendant’s counterclaims. The summary judgment can be read to mean that it decided both plaintiff’s claims and defendant’s counterclaims. If so, defendant took no appeal from that portion of the summary judgment that was “entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.” Furthermore, this portion of the summary judgment is not an appealable order. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages. The summary judgment established liability but not damages. Rule 56(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that: ... A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages. [Emphasis added.] The rule is uniform that Rule 56 is not intended to affect appeal jurisdiction. It does not make an interlocutory order appealable. A summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability alone is an interlocutory order and non-appealable. Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Nix, 85 N.M. 415, 512 P.2d 1251 (1973); Schultz v. Adams, 161 Mont. 463, 507 P.2d 530 (1973); Wheatland Irrigation District v. McGuire, 537 P.2d 1128 (Wyo.1975); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976); Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, 173 F.2d 317 (3d Cir. 1949); Russell v. Barnes Foundation, 136 F.2d 654 (3d Cir. 1943). The interlocutory order entered does not fall within the orbit of § 39-3-4, N.M.S.A. 1978 which relates to appealable interlocutory orders. A “partial” summary judgment is not a “judgment” within the meaning of Rule 54(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The “partial” summary judgment rendered plaintiff rests in the trial court and does not become final until the issue of damages is decided by a trier of the fact. It is not subject to a determination in this appeal. The defendant’s and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment with reference to defendant’s counterclaims were without foundation in fact and law. The district court should set this case for trial as soon as possible without recognition of any motions for continuances, delays or otherwise.