SHANNON v HULETT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-212 I N THE SUPREI~IE COURT OF THE S.TATE OF FIONTANA 1982 CHARLES SHANNON, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , DONALD E . HULETT, EAST VALLEY TRUCI<ING, and STEVEN LUKSHA, D e f e n d a n t s and A p s e l l a n t s . Ap2eal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i f t h 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 C o u n t y of J e f f e r s o n , T h e I I o n o r a b l e F r a n k B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For Appellants: C o r e t t e , S m i t h , Pohlrnan & A l l e n ; Butte, Montana Robert Carlson, F o r Respondent: John L. P e t e r s o n , B u t t e , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: September 9, 1982 January 1 9 , 1 9 8 3 . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendants appeal an order of t h e Jefferson County D i s t r i c t Court granting pla.intiff a new t r i a l a f t e r a jury returned a defense verdict i n a personal injury case. Although defendants r a i s e several issues concerning a claim t h a t the t r i a l court abused its discretion, we decline t o decide the case on the m e r i t s a t t h i s t i m e because the t r i a l court, in granting a new t r i a l , f a i l e d t o canply with Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., which requires that: "Any ord-er of the court granting a new t r i a l , s h a l l specify the grounds therefor with sufficient p a r t i c u l a r i t y a s t o a p r i s e the p a r t i e s and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling, and this may be done i n the body of the order, o r in an attached m r a n d u m . " In granting a new t r i a l the court entered an order me1e.1-y s t a t i n g t h a t "on good cause shown the motion b y p l a i n t i f f f o r a new t r i a l is hereby granted. " The defendants then a p a l e d , and three and a half months a f t e r t h e notice of appeal was f i l e d , the t r i a l court f i l e d a document with +this Court e n t i t l e d "Certification of Issues on A p a l in Granting Motion f o r a New Trial." This document, prepared b y p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel, sets f o r t h +the reasons the t r i a l court granted a new t r i a l . For policy reasons, we decline t o consider t h a t order which attempts t o r e l a t e back t o t h e originalorder grantina a new t r i a l . In Churchhill v. Holly Sugar Corp. (19811, Mont . I 629 P.2d 758, 38 St.Rep. 860, we held t h a t amended findings of f a c t f i l e d a f t e r a notice of appeal has been f i l e d cannot be considered. The policy reasons underlying t h i s holding a l s o apply here. In addition, i n Ballantyne ~ 7 . Anaconda Co. (1978), 175 Mont. 406, 574 P.2d 582, because the t r i a l court had fa.iled t o comply w i t h Rule 5 9 ( f ) in granting a new t r i a l , we remanded t o the t r i a l court t o enter reasons f o r granting a new t r i a l . After this was done the case wzs not again appealed t o this Court. Rule 59 ( f ) assures that +his Court w i l l not have t o guess a t a t r i a l c o u r t ' s reasons f o r granting a new t r i a l , t h a t we w i l l not have t o search f o r the ~ r o v e r b i a l needle i n the haystack. Further, where reasons a r e absent it is d i f f i c u l t to determine whether the t r i a l court properly exercised its discretion i n granting a new t r i a l . The r u l e provides a imprtant safeguard t o the t r i a l c o u r t ' s use of discretion. n Requiring reasons means t h a t the t r i a l court must discipline its thinking in the process of considerinq the claimed reasons a new t r i a l should be granted. This process should r e s u l t i n a higher probability t h a t a proper decision w i l l he reached. The costs of a new t r i a l i n many cases a r e significant; the tria.1 court owes a duty t o the l i t i g a n t s , t o the public, and t o this Court, t o follow these safeguards i n determining whether a new t r i a l should be granted. W a r e aware t h a t \re accepted a so-called l a t e r certificati-on e of reasons f o r granting a new t r i a l i n G i l e s v. F l i n t Valley Forest Products (1979), 179 Mont. 382, 588 P.2d 535, and held t h a t the l a t e c e r t i f i c a t i o n nonetheless f u l f i l l e d t h e policy behind Rule 5 9 ( f ) . To the extent G i l e s is inconsistent with our holding here, it is 0~7errul.ed. An order, whether prepared by an attorney f o r the t r i a l c o u r t ' s signature, o r an order prepared bv the t r i a l court i t s e l f , entered a f t e r the decision granting a new t r i a l , f a i l s t o disclose the reasoning process used in reaching the decision t o grant a new trial. To he of value, t h a t reasoning process must precede the order granting a new t r i a l and it must be s e t f o r t h i n writing a t l e a s t simul~taneously with the orcler granting the new t r i a l . W dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand the case t o e the t r i a l court f o r reconsideration and entry of compliance with Rule 59 ( f ) . an order i n We Concur: Chief Justice fir. Chief Justice FranK I. Haswell, dissenting: The majority hold that a subsequent certification of the reasons why the District Court granted a new trial is ineffective and remand the case back to the District Court for reconslderatlon. In my view thls rullng exalts form over substance, technicality over purpose, and is quite unrealistic. The result is delay in final disposition of cases, an unnecessary burden on Montana's District Courts, many of which are alreaay staggering under unmanageable caseloads, and pro- motes only an academic and theoretical objective. We already have before us for review the Distrlct Court's order granting a new trial and the District Court's reasons for that order. If the majority feel the order granting a new trial is erroneous, this Court can so rule on appeal. What is accomplished by remanding the case back to the District Court for entry of another order with contemporaneous reasons therefor? 1s it realistic to think that anything of substance will be changed in this process? The Dlstrlct Court has already ruled and given its reasons. I would follow our prior decision in Giles v. Flint Valley Forest Products (1953), 179 Mont. 382, 588 P.2d 535, holding that later certification of the reasons for an order yrantlng a new trial satisfies the purpose and policy behind Rule 59(b), M.R.Civ.P. The District Court's order is either correct or incorrect. It is our duty to determine this on appeal. %.AOUe.p, Chief & usl lice
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.
