Allen v. Hubbard , 309 Mont. 375 ( 2002 )

No. 01-561
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2002 MT 95STEPHEN G. ALLEN and CYNTHIA A. ALLEN,
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Respondents,
v.
D.L. HUBBARD,
Defendant/Counterclaimant/Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula,
The Honorable Edward P. McLean, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Robert J. Phillips, Phillips & Bohyer, Missoula, Montana
For Respondents:
Richard A. Reep, Kristine J. Beal, Reep, Spoon & Gordon, Missoula,
Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 17, 2002
Decided: May 9, 2002
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Regnier delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Duncan Hubbard appeals from the Opinion and Order of the
Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, dismissing
Hubbard’s appeal from small claims court as untimely. We affirm.
¶2 The following issue is dispositive of this appeal:
¶3 Did the District Court err by including weekends and holidays
when it calculated the ten-day, statutory appeal time set forth in
§ 25-35-803, MCA?
BACKGROUND
¶4 The relevant facts in this case are few and undisputed.
Stephen G. Allen and Cynthia A. Allen (collectively, the “Allens”)
sued Hubbard to recover land survey costs. On December 12, 2000,
Justice of the Peace Karen A. Orzech of the Justice Court, Missoula
County, Small Claims Division, entered a judgment in Allen’s favor.
Hubbard filed a Notice of Appeal on December 27, 2000. Judge
Edward McLean dismissed Hubbard’s appeal as untimely and awarded
fees and costs to the Allens on May 21, 2001. Hubbard appeals the
District Court’s dismissal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5 We review a district court’s conclusions of law de novo to
determine whether they are correct. See Babcock v. Farmers Ins.
Exch., 2000 MT 114, ¶ 5, 299 Mont. 407, ¶ 5, 999 P.2d 347, ¶ 5.
2
DISCUSSION
¶6 Did the District Court err by including weekends and holidays
when it calculated the ten-day, statutory appeal time set forth in
§ 25-35-803, MCA?
¶7 A party has ten days to file a notice of appeal with the
district court if dissatisfied with the judgment of a small claims
court. See § 25-35-803, MCA. Here, Hubbard waited fifteen
calendar days to file his notice of appeal to the District Court.
He argues, however, that when calculating the statutory time limit,
a court should not include weekends or holidays in its
calculations. Under such a calculation, Hubbard would have filed
his notice of appeal exactly ten days after the date of the small
claims court’s judgment.
¶8 When interpreting a statute, we look to the plain meaning of
the words. See State v. Fauque, 2000 MT 168, ¶ 10, 300 Mont. 307,
¶ 10, 4 P.3d 651, ¶ 10. Our aim is “simply to ascertain and
declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to
insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted.”
Section 1-2-101, MCA. If the language is clear and unambiguous, we
do not need to conduct further interpretations. See Fauque, ¶ 10.
¶9 The language of § 25-35-803, MCA, is clear concerning the
length of time a party has to file an appeal. It states that,
“[a]n appeal shall be commenced by giving written notice to the
small claims court and serving a copy of the notice of appeal on
the adverse party within 10 days after entry of judgment.” Section
3
25-35-803(1), MCA. Hubbard, however, urges us to look at two other
statutory provisions to conclude that we should not include
weekends or holidays in our calculations.
¶10 Hubbard first directs us to the Montana Uniform Rules for the
Justice and City Courts (the “Uniform Rules”). Rule 21 of the
Uniform Rules states that “[w]hen the period of time prescribed or
allowed is ten days or less, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays shall be excluded.” Hubbard argues that Rule 21
applies because Rule 1(a) of the Uniform Rules states that “[t]hese
rules, together with the Montana Justice and City Court Rules of
Civil Procedure, govern the practice in all justice and city courts
of the State of Montana.” Contrasting the language of the Uniform
Rules with that of the Montana Justice and City Court Rules of
Civil Procedure, the latter of which specifically excludes small
claims actions from its scope, Hubbard maintains that the
Legislature clearly intended the Uniform Rules to apply to small
claims actions. Compare Rule 1, Mont. Justice and City Court
R.Civ.P. (stating that “[t]hese rules govern the procedure in the
justice and city courts . . . except in small claims actions.”
(emphasis added)) with Rule 1(a) Mont. Unif. R. for the Justice and
City Courts (stating that “[t]hese rules . . . govern the practice
in all justice and city courts,” without mentioning small claims
actions). Examining the language of both the Small Claims
Procedure and the Uniform Rules, however, we cannot agree that the
Uniform Rules apply to § 25-35-803, MCA.
4
¶11 The rules for Small Claims Procedure vary in several
significant ways from the Uniform Rules. For instance, Small
Claims Procedure rules do not allow for a form of pleadings other
than a complaint or counterclaim. See § 25-35-607, MCA. The
Uniform Rules, on the other hand, allow for answers and motions for
orders. See Rules 8 & 9, Mont. Justice and City Court R.Civ.P.
Additionally, Small Claims Procedure rules limit the use of
counsel, while the Uniform Rules specifically allow counsel to
represent a party. Compare § 25-35-505, MCA, with Rule 14, Uniform
Rules. Given these differences, we cannot agree that the Uniform
Rules necessarily apply to all procedures in small claims actions.
¶12 Alternatively, Hubbard suggests we apply Rule 6(a),
M.R.Civ.P., when calculating the time allowed in § 25-35-803, MCA.
Rule 6(a) states that “[w]hen the period of time prescribed or
allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and
holidays shall be excluded in the computation.” In support of his
argument, Hubbard directs us to several of our prior decisions for
the proposition that Rule 6 applies to appeals to the District
Court. None of these cases, however, deals with an appeal from a
small claims court. See In re Adoption of S.E. (1988), 232 Mont.
31, 755 P.2d 27 (applying Rule 2 of the Uniform Rules, which
specifically cites Rule 6(a), to a post-hearing motion in district
court); DeTienne Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Montana Rail Link, Inc.
(1993), 261 Mont. 238, 862 P.2d 1106 (interpreting Rule 6(a) in
context of a motion for a new trial in district court); State, By
and Through Dept. of Highways v. Helehan (1977), 171 Mont. 473, 559
5
P.2d 817 (applying Rule 6(a) to Rule 6(e) in context of an appeal
from a commissioners’ award).
¶13 Hubbard also relies on Rule 1, M.R.Civ.P, which defines the
scope of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 1 states that the
Rules “govern the procedure in the district courts of the state of
Montana . . . with the exceptions stated in Rule 81.” In turn,
Rule 81(b) states that “[t]hese rules do not supersede the
provisions of statutes relating to appeals to or review by the
district courts, but shall govern procedure and practice relating
thereto insofar as these rules are not inconsistent with such
statutes.” We do not dispute that situations will arise where
these three provisions must work in concert to complement each
other. Nevertheless, we find Hubbard’s arguments unpersuasive in
this case.
¶14 The language of § 25-35-803, MCA, is unambiguous. It clearly
states that a party has ten days in which to file a notice of
appeal, without mentioning the exclusion of weekends and holidays.
The fact that other chapters of the code make such an exclusion is
notable. In general, the Montana Unified Rules for the Justice and
City Courts govern justice and city courts, the Montana Rules of
Civil Procedure govern district courts and the Small Claims
Procedure governs small claims courts. See generally, Rule 1,
M.R.Civ.P.; Rule 1 Mont. Unif. R. for the Justice and City Courts;
§ 25-35-501, MCA. Two of the three statutory regimes provide that
courts should not count weekends and holidays when calculating
6
times. The rules of Small Claims Procedure, however, offer no such
provision.
¶15 We will not ignore such a noticeable absence from the Small
Claims Procedure’s language. If the Legislature wished to exclude
weekends and holidays from the calculation in § 25-35-803, MCA,
they could easily have done so, as Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules and
Rule 6(a), M.R.Civ.P., do. Therefore, we conclude that the
District Court was correct when it included holidays and weekends
when calculating the ten-day limit in § 25-35-803, MCA.
¶16 As a final matter, the Allens request attorney’s fees and
costs under § 24-35-806, MCA. The section they cite, however,
applies only to appeals from a small claims court to a district
court. The Allens thus cite no authority that supports their
request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal from the District
Court. Therefore, we will not grant the Allens their request for
attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal. We note only that, as the
prevailing party, the Allens are automatically entitled to costs
under Rule 33, M.R.App.P.
¶17 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM REGNIER
We Concur:
/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
7
Justice Patricia O. Cotter dissents.
¶18 I dissent. As the Court points out at ¶ 4 of its Opinion,
Hubbard filed a notice of appeal from a decision entered in favor
of Allen in "Justice Court, Missoula County, Small Claims
Division." The Montana Uniform Rules for the Justice and City
Courts ("Uniform Rules") apply by their own language to Justice and
City courts. Small Claims Court is a division of Justice Court.
As the majority acknowledges in ¶ 10 of its Opinion, Rule 21 of the
Uniform Rules clearly provides that, "when the period of time
prescribed or allowed is ten days or less, intermediate Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded." The rule is clear
and unequivocal. Nonetheless, the majority has concluded that
Hubbard should have gone beyond this Uniform Rule and performed an
analysis of other rules, including the Montana Justice and City
Court Rules of Civil Procedure, before determining whether Uniform
Rule 21 actually applied to his case. I disagree.
¶19 The Uniform Rules do not exclude from their purview actions
which take place in the Small Claims division of the Justice Court.
Hubbard was therefore entitled to rely on those rules, and should
not lose his appellate rights because another set of rules
contradicts the Uniform Rules which, on their face, appeared to
apply squarely to his case.
¶20 Rule 81(b), M.R.Civ.P., also supports Hubbard’s position. It
provides:
These rules [The Montana Rules of Civil Procedure] do not
supersede the provisions of statutes relating to appeals
to or review by the district courts, but shall govern
procedure and practice relating thereto insofar as these
rules are not inconsistent with such statutes.
8
The majority has cited no statute which specifies that intervening
weekends and holidays are not to be included in the ten-day time
frame set forth in § 25-35-803, MCA. Therefore, the application of
Rule 6(a), M.R.Civ.P., to Hubbard’s notice of appeal would not be
inconsistent with any statutes governing Small Claims procedures.
So, under Rule 81, Rule 6(a) ought to apply.
¶21 It seems to me that we should apply statutes in a manner
consistent with Hubbard’s right to appeal, instead of seeking
statutory interpretations which defeat it. I dissent.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
9