Rose v. Abrahams , 297 Mont. 255 ( 1999 )

No
No. 98-431
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1999 MT 314297 Mont. 255991 P.2d 459STEVEN AND SANDRA ROSE,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
LUKE AND DEBRA ABRAHAMS,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial
District,
In and for the County of Lake,
The Honorable C. B. McNeil, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
Richard R. Buley, Tipp & Buley, P.C.; Missoula, Montana
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-431%20Opinion.htm (1 of 4)4/10/2007 10:10:15 AM
No
For Respondents:
Luke and Debra Abrahams, Pro Se; Plains, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 14, 1999
Decided: December 14, 1999
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler delivered the opinion of the Court.
1. ¶ The Plaintiffs, Steven and Sandra Rose, appealed to the District Court for the
Twentieth Judicial District in Lake County from the judgment of the Justice Court in
Lake County which dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint and awarded default
judgment to the Defendants. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' appeal for
Plaintiffs' failure to timely respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The
Plaintiffs appeal from the Order of the District Court. We reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
2. ¶ The Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief with this Court on September 16, 1998.
The Defendants have not filed a brief. On August 18, 1999, this Court ordered the
Defendants to show good cause for failure to file a brief. Defendants have failed to
respond, and therefore, this case was submitted for decision based on the Plaintiffs'
brief.
3. ¶ The following issue is dispositive:
4. ¶ Did the District Court err when it dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal for failure to timely
respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 2 of the Uniform
District Court Rules?
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-431%20Opinion.htm (2 of 4)4/10/2007 10:10:15 AM
No
5. ¶ On August 5, 1997, the Plaintiffs, Steven and Sandra Rose, filed a complaint in
the Justice Court for Lake County to recover damages for unpaid rent and property
damage from the Defendants, Luke and Debra Abrahams. On December 1, 1997,
the Justice Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and awarded default
judgment to the Defendants. On February 17, 1998, Plaintiffs appealed the Justice
Court decision to the District Court. The District Court scheduled a pretrial
conference for April 1, 1998. On March 11, 1998, the District Court rescheduled the
pretrial conference for March 31, 1998. On March 16, 1998, Plaintiffs filed a motion
for substitution of counsel. However, notice of the rescheduled pretrial conference
had been sent to the Plaintiffs' previous counsel and Plaintiffs' substituted counsel
did not receive notice of the new date.
6. ¶ On March 31, 1998, the District Court held the rescheduled pretrial conference
and neither the Plaintiffs nor their attorney appeared. Based on the Plaintiffs' failure
to appear, the District Court ordered their appeal dismissed on that date. On April 3,
1998, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the District Court's order of
dismissal on the basis that the Plaintiffs' counsel had not received notice of the
rescheduled pretrial conference. On April 21, 1998, the District Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for relief and rescinded its March 31, 1998 order.
7. ¶ On March 24, 1998, prior to the District Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' action
for failure to appear at the pretrial conference, the Defendants had filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal for failure to timely appeal from the Justice Court's decision. On
May 5, 1998, following the District Court's recision of its order to dismiss Plaintiffs'
action for failure to appear, the District Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss based on its sua sponte conclusion that the Plaintiffs had failed to file an
answer brief within the ten-day time period required by Rule 2 of the Montana
Uniform District Court Rules.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
8. ¶ We review a district court's conclusion of law to determine whether it is correct.
Geissler v. Sanem (1997), 285 Mont. 411,414, 949 P.2d 234, 236-37.
DISCUSSION
9. ¶ Did the District Court err when it dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal for failure to timely
respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 2 of the Uniform
District Court Rules?
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-431%20Opinion.htm (3 of 4)4/10/2007 10:10:15 AM
No
10. ¶ The Plaintiffs contend that the District Court erred when it dismissed their appeal
for failure to respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss within ten days as
required by Rule 2 of the Uniform District Court Rules. The District Court
concluded that the time to respond to the Defendants' motion was tolled during the
period of time the Plaintiffs' action had been dismissed for failure to appear but that
when the District Court rescinded its order to dismiss, the Plaintiffs had only so
much time remaining as had been remaining when the appeal was first dismissed.
However, Plaintiffs assert that they were entitled to ten days from the time this
appeal was reinstated within which to respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
11. ¶ We have not previously addressed these unique circumstances and know of no rule
nor case law which resolves the issue presented.
12. ¶ We are guided, however, by our repeated observation that the ultimate purpose of
our Rules of Civil Procedure is to resolve controversies on their merits. See
Yarborough v. Glacier County (1997), 285 Mont. 494, 497, 948 P.2d 1181, 1183.
13. ¶ Accordingly, we conclude that, without notice to the contrary, it was reasonable
for the Plaintiffs to assume that they had ten days from the reinstatement of their
appeal to respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss their appeal, and that their
appeal was dismissed for a second time before that time had elapsed. Therefore, we
conclude that the District Court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs' action for
failure to timely respond to the Defendants' motion. We reverse the judgment of the
District Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
We Concur:
/S/ J. A. TURNAGE
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-431%20Opinion.htm (4 of 4)4/10/2007 10:10:15 AM