Court Opinion

ID: 9810654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:55:23.074599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:08.163799
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RICE,
concurring.
¶23 I concur with the Court’s determination to reverse and set aside the default entered against David, as it is necessary under this Court’s precedent. Recently, we reversed and set aside the default and default judgment entered in Hall v. Hall, 2015 MT 226, 380 Mont. 224, 354 P.3d 1224, a case that offers abundant hope for David and other parties who fail to properly plead and participate in litigation.
¶24 In Hall v. Hall, Donald Hall was served with a summons and complaint and sent letters in response, which the District Court held were insufficient to constitute a pleading, and ordered Hall to file an answer. Hall, ¶¶ 4,32. Hall failed to do so, and three months later, the plaintiff moved for entry of default. Hall was served with this motion but did not respond, and his default was entered. Hall, ¶¶ 4, 33. Litigation with the other parties continued and, over two and a half years later, Hall was served with plaintiffs motion for entry of default *432judgment against him. Hall did not respond and default judgment was entered against him. Hall, ¶¶ 9, 38. He did not appeal from the judgment. Six months later, plaintiff initiated a writ of execution for seizure of Hall’s property to satisfy the judgment, which prompted Hall to provide further correspondence that the District Court deemed to be a motion to set aside the default judgment, and denied. Hall did not appeal from this denial. Hall, ¶¶ 11,39. Almost three years after that, Hall appealed from the District Court’s denial of his motion for a hearing on exemptions from execution. Hall, ¶¶ 12,40. At that point, over seven years after the default was entered, and over five years after the default judgment was entered, this Court deemed Hall’s appeal to actually be an appeal from the judgment and granted him full relief from the entry of default and default judgment. Hall, ¶ 25.
¶25 The Court’s extreme makeover of the halls of justice in that case undeniably compels relief here, both by stare decisis and by any measure of the equal application of the law. David’s actions here are but a scratch in the paint compared to the total wreck Donald Hall made of the rules of civil and appellate procedure.