Court Opinion

ID: 9766804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:59:47.972553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:26.424791
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
BLEIL, Justice.
After the Court’s original opinion was issued, AMSAY and Seib filed their motion for rehearing. The majority modified its opinion to address and discount the arguments presented in the motion for rehearing.
I wish to comment only on one aspect of the motion for rehearing which the majority addresses, namely, the basis for Joiner’s failure to answer. The Court concludes that “the basis set forth for the failure to file an answer shows that it was due to a mistake and was not intentional or due to conscious indifference.” (Majority opinion, p. 321). It appears logically inexplicable that the majority arrives at this conclusion when, as it acknowledges in footnote 1, Joiner’s failure to appear and answer the cross-action filed against him was unequivocally due to one reason: he intentionally did not answer based on his lawyer’s advice.