NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INS v AGRA-

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 80-484 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . AGRA-STEEL CORPORATION, e t a l . , Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f F l a t h e a d Honorable James M. S a l a n s k y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and P h i l l i p s , K a l i s p e l l , Montana F o r Respondent : Warden, C h r i s t i a n s e n and Johnson, K a l i s p e l l , Montana A s t l e and A s t l e , K a l i s p e l l , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : Decided: Filed: A U G 6 - 1988 m Clerk May 28, 1 9 8 1 August 6 , 1 9 8 1 J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. Defendant, Agra S t e e l , a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d August 1 2 , 1980, i n t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d County, f o l l o w i n g a t r i a l b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . The judgment awarded Northwestern N a t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e Company $20,000 w i t h a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t and awarded $24,319 t o James R. B a r b a r a E. Johnson. Johnson and The damages r e s u l t e d from b r e a c h of e x p r e s s and i m p l i e d w a r r a n t i e s c o v e r i n g a s t e e l s t o r a g e b u i l d i n g p u r c h a s e d from Agra S t e e l by t h e Johnsons and i n s u r e d by Northwestern N a t i o n a l . A heavy s n o w f a l l c a u s e d t h e roof t o sag. Approximately one y e a r a f t e r t h e r o o f was damaged, Northwestern N a t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e Company p a i d t h e Johnsons $20,000 under a n i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t c o v e r i n g t h e b u i l d i n g . Northwestern t h e n sued Agra S t e e l t h r o u g h e x e r c i s i n g subrogation rights. The Johnsons a l s o b r o u g h t s u i t c l a i m i n g damages i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $20,000 p a i d under t h e i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t . The a c t i o n s were t h e r e a f t e r c o n s o l i d a t e d and t r i e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury. C o n s o l i d a t e d judgments a g a i n s t Agra S t e e l were o r d e r e d August 11, 1980, and n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d August 1.2 and s e r v e d upon c o u n s e l f o r Northwestern ~ a t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e and Agra S t e e l . served. Counsel f o r t h e Johnsons was n o t Agra S t e e l f i l e d i t s n o t i c e of a p p e a l September 2 2 , 4 1 d a y s from n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment. On September 2 4 , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s made a motion t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o dismiss t h e appeal a s untimely f i l e d . Argument on t h e motion t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l was h e a r d October 7 and on October 27, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found and o r d e r e d : ... " t h e C l e r k of t h i s C o u r t n e g l e c t e d t o send N o t i c e of E n t r y of Judgment t o d e f e n d a n t ' s coc o u n s e l i n t h e S t a t e o f M i s s o u r i ; t h a t t h e same may have caused c o n f u s i o n on t h e p a r t of such coc o u n s e l a s t o when t h e a p p e a l t i m e commenced runn i n g ; i t a p p e a r s t o t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e same cons t i t u t e s excusable neglect; " T h e r e f o r e , p l a i n t i f f s ' Motion t o D i s m i s s i s hereby d e n i e d ; t h e t i m e w i t h i n which d e f e n d a n t may f i l e i t s n o t i c e of a p p e a l i s h e r e b y extended t h i r t y days. Dated t h i s 27th day of O c t o b e r , 1980." Agra S t e e l d i d n o t f i l e a s u b s e q u e n t n o t i c e of a p p e a l , o s t e n s i b l y r e l y i n g upon t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l f i l e d September I n e v e r y a p p e a l t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n i s t h a t of j u r i s d i c tion. Hand v. Hand ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 1 3 1 Mont. 990, 992. 571, 576, 312 P.2d B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g w e must c o n s i d e r whether o r n o t Agra S t e e l p r o p e r l y p e r f e c t e d i t s r i g h t of a p p e a l . Appellant had t h e d u t y t o p e r f e c t i t s a p p e a l i n t h e manner and w i t h i n t h e t i m e l i m i t s p r o v i d e d by law. Absent s u c h compliance, t h i s C o u r t d o e s n o t a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n and d e t e r m i n e t h e m e r i t s of t h e a p p e a l . Zunchich ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , Rule 4 ( a ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., P r i c e v. 612 P.2d 1296, 37 St.Rep. states: " [A] n a p p e a l s h a l l b e t a k e n by f i l i n g a n o t i c e of a p p e a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . " Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., provides: "The t i m e w i t h i n which a n a p p e a l from a judgment o r a n o r d e r must b e t a k e n s h a l l be 30 d a y s from t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , e x c e p t t h a t i n c a s e s where s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment i s req u i r e d by Rule 7 7 ( d ) of t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e t h e t i m e s h a l l be 30 d a y s from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment ... ". . . Upon showing of e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l by any p a r t y f o r a p e r i o d n o t t o exceed 30 d a y s from t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l t i m e p r e s c r i b e d by t h i s r u l e . " I n t h i s c a s e t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d August 12 and s e r v e d by m a i l . The o r i g i n a l time f o r g i v i n g n o t i c e of a p p e a l t h e r e f o r e e x p i r e d 34 d a y s l a t e r on September 1 5 , Rule 2 1 M.R.App.Civ.P. The maximum a l l o w a b l e t i m e p e r i o d w i t h i n which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d g r a n t a n e x t e n s i o n of t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l e x p i r e d October 15. Z e l l v. Z e l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 496, 565 P.2d 311. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n i t s o r d e r of October 27, d e n i e d r e s p o n d e n t s ' motion t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l and e x t e n d e d t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e u n t i l November 27. The o r d e r was e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e i t g r a n t e d an e x t e n s i o n of t i m e beyond t h e l i m i t s of Rule 5 , M.R.App.Cil7.P. n o t a c t a f t e r October 15. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d The o n l y n o t i c e of a p p e a l h e r e on f i l e i s one f i l e d o u t of t i m e . N timely o r d e r has extended o the time. W h o l d Agra S t e e l , by f a i l i n g t o f i l e a t i m e l y n o t i c e e of a p p e a l , h a s f a i l e d t o p e r f e c t i t s r i g h t of a p p e a l . We, t h e r e f o r e , l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e m e r i t s and must dismiss t h i s appeal. W e concur: Chief ~ u s t i c e Justices !

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.