Court Opinion

ID: 9560617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:52:18.751657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:02.655111
License: Public Domain

*145BISTLINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
This justice writes separately in order to emphasize that 1) a finding of legitimate and reasonable misunderstanding will mandate setting aside entry of a default judgment under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(1); and 2) that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the defaulting party and of reaching the merits of a case.
There is no question that the majority here is correct in its articulation of the law surrounding motions to set aside default judgments, insofar as it goes. However, the majority fails to address the case of Stoner v. Turner, 73 Idaho 117, 247 P.2d 469 (1952), a case I cannot overlook, perhaps because of eyewitness exposure to it. One does not readily forget Justice C.J. Taylor’s choice of language in setting aside a default, where a misunderstanding as to what was said between two co-defendants resulted in the entry of a timely appearance by only one of the two, the other being defaulted. Justice Taylor observed the context in which the issue was presented and stated the Court’s decision, all of which is found at 73 Idaho at 121, 247 P.2d at 470-471. Even though Stoner is a preFederal Rules of Civil Procedure case (upon which the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure were later modeled), the words contained therein should still carry great weight, particularly in light of this Court’s more recent ruling in regard to I.R.C.P. 60(b), that the criteria under Rule 60(b)(1) should be “tempered by the policy favoring relief in doubtful cases.” Shelton v. Diamond Int’l Corp., 108 Idaho 935, 938, 703 P.2d 699, 702 (1985) (quoting Avondale on Hayden, Inc. v. Hall, 104 Idaho 321, 326, 658 P.2d 992, 997 (Ct.App.1983)).
Stoner v. Turner provided a well-stated rule governing the entry of defaults, as well as the setting aside of defaults which have been entered, the overriding principles of which are that the trial court’s discretion should be freely and liberally exercised. Stoner, 73 Idaho at 121, 247 P.2d at 471. Similarly instructive is a later case, Bunn v. Bunn, 99 Idaho 710, 587 P.2d 1245 (1978), which relied upon and recited the holding of Stoner:
The object of statutes and rules regulating procedure in the courts is to promote the administration of justice. Those statutes and rules which fix the time within which procedural rights are to be asserted are intended to expedite the disposition of causes to the end that justice will not be denied by inexcusable and unnecessary delay. But, except as to those which are mandatory or jurisdictional, procedural regulations should not be so applied as to defeat their primary purpose, that is, the disposition of causes upon their substantial merits without delay or prejudice.
Bunn, 99 Idaho at 711, 587 P.2d at 1246. Bunn also directed attention to Rule 1, I.R.C.P.:
These rules govern the procedure in the district, probate and justices’ courts in the state of Idaho in all actions and proceedings of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity, with the exceptions stated in particular rules and in rule 81. They shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
Bunn, 99 Idaho at 712, 587 P.2d at 1247.
The instant case before us is not factually on par with Stoner v. Turner. Anthony’s attorney did not allege any misunderstanding as to the date and time of the default hearing; indeed, it was a dereliction of duty for him not to be present or at least notify court and counsel of his inability to be present and to arrange a continuance. Anthony’s counsel’s contention that he misunderstood the purpose of the default judgment hearing was not a reasonable one, as is required by I.R.C.P. 60(b)(1). See, e.g., Hearst Corp. v. Keller, 100 Idaho 10, 12, 592 P.2d 66, 68 (1979).
There was a fair amount of confusion in Anthony’s case as to the status of his motion to dismiss, as well as other matters. If Anthony’s attorney were present at the default hearing, I would be inclined to come to a different conclusion in this case. Nonetheless, in light of his failure to appear, the court’s express finding that the motion to dismiss had been withdrawn, and the fact that plaintiff actually noticed up *146defendant’s pending motion to dismiss in an attempt to move the case along, the district court was within its sound discretion in finding a pattern of neglect — the very “inexcusable and unnecessary” delay warned against by Justice Taylor.