Court Opinion

ID: 9511212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:02:51.403063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:55.027170
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE REGNIER
concurring and dissenting.
¶24 I concur in the Court’s legal analysis and its decision to clearly pronounce that different standards apply depending on whether a court is considering a motion to set aside a default rather than a default judgment. In my view, the Court correctly retained the “good cause” standard recognized in our Cribb decision for setting aside a default. Further, I believe the Court also correctly recognized that a higher showing is required to set aside a default judgment. Our decision in Blume recognizes this more stringent “excusable neglect” standard.
¶25 The District Court erroneously applied the more stringent “excusable neglect” standard when it refused to set aside the default. Since the District Court used the wrong standard, I believe the more appropriate resolution is to remand this matter to the District Court for a new hearing and its determination of whether this default should be set aside under the correct Cribb standard.