KINION v DESIGN SYSTEMS INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-202 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1980 RICHARD K I N I O N I P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , DESIGN SYSTEMS, I N C . , A Montana C o r p o r a t i o n , Ted T. T o p o l s k i , B i l l C h i l d e r s , L a r r y Dauenhauer, Defendants and SECURITY TRUST and SAVINGS BANK, D e f e n d a n t and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County o f C a s c a d e . Honorable H. W i l l i a m Coder, Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: C. L. O v e r f e l t a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent: Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, T o o l e and D i e t r i c h , B i l l i n g s , Montana Ronald L o d d e r s a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: 21<(; + ;$$@ November 2 0 , 2 4 1980 1980 Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f R i c h a r d K i n i o n b r o u g h t a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendant Design Systems, Inc., t h e S e c u r i t y T r u s t and S a v i n g s Bank ( S e c u r i t y B a n k ) , and s e v e r a l o t h e r s i n J u l y 1 9 7 8 . A d e f a u l t judgment was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s D e s i g n S y s t e m s , Inc. ( D e s i g n ) and S e c u r i t y Bank by t h e C a s c a d e County D i s t r i c t C o u r t o n December 27, 1 9 7 8 . S e c u r i t y Bank moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment o n March 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 . Judge Coder e n t e r e d a n o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment on March 27, 1 9 8 0 . Richard K i n i o n t i m e l y f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r and on J u n e 3 , 1 9 8 0 , f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t o f supervisory control. W h o l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y and e n o n a p p e a l a b l e and t h a t t h e p r e s e n t case is i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e e x e r c i s e of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . I n S h i e l d s v. P i r k l e R e f r i g e r a t e d F r e i g h t l i n e s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 5 9 1 P.2d 1 1 2 0 , 36 S t . R e p . 472, we s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t a n o r d e r v a c a t i n g a d e f a u l t judgment i s o n l y a p p e a l a b l e as a f i n a l judgment u n d e r R u l e 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., o r d e r i s t o f i n a l l y d i s p o s e of t h e case. i f t h e r e s u l t of t h e I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e o r d e r v a c a t i n g t h e d e f a u l t judgment l e f t t h e case p e n d i n g i n t h e Cascade County District C o u r t f o r a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . r e s u l t , no f i n a l judgment was e n t e r e d , As a the District Court o r d e r was i n t e r l o c u t o r y and t h e a p p e a l is n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s Court. K i n i o n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l was f i l e d t o allow t h i s C o u r t a means of g r a n t i n g him r e l i e f i n the e v e n t w e d e t e r m i n e d , as w e h a v e , t h a t t h i s c a s e is n o n a p p e a l a b l e . H e a s s e r t s t h a t t h e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i n t h e p r e s e n t case would be p r o p e r s i n c e t h e a l t e r n a t i v e remedy, t r i a l o n t h e m e r i t s , is w h o l l y i n a d e q u a t e . - 2 - Plaintiff further a asserts t h a t a w r i t s h o u l d i s s u e to p r e v e n t n e e d l e s s l i t i g a t i o n . A s i m i l a r i s s u e was p r e s e n t e d Co. i n F i t z g e r a l d v. A e t n a I n s . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 1 8 6 , 577 P.2d 370. I n t h a t case, A e t n a a p p e a l e d f r o m a D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r which g r a n t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t . Aetna a l s o s o u g h t a w r i t of s u p e r - v i s o r y c o n t r o l with regard t o a District Court o r d e r denying a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e two c o u n t s of p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t . This Court s t a t e d t h a t t h e o r d e r was i n t e r l o c u t o r y and t h e r e f o r e r e v i e w a b l e o n l y upon a f i n a l j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e s 1 and 2 , M.R.App.Civ.P. Our h o l d i n g , which f o l l o w s , a l s o d i s p o s e s of t h e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i s s u e i n t h e p r e s e n t case: ". . . To p e r m i t r e v i e w o f s u c h a n o r d e r p r i o r t o f i n a l judgment t h r o u g h t h e d e v i c e of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l or o t h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t is t o a c c o m p l i s h i n d i r e c t l y t h a t which c a n n o t be done d i r e c t l y . S e e S t a t e ex r e l . Kosena v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 2 1 , 5 6 0 P.2d 522. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e d e c l i n e t o r e v i e w t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o s t r i k e a t t h i s t i m e as t h e i s s u e is n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e us." 1 7 6 Mont. a t 1 9 5 , 5 7 7 P.2d a t 375. The a p p e a l is a c c o r d i n g l y d i s m i s s e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l is d e n i e d and t h e case is remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: / JUG t i c e s ? *, L ' 7 v

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.