GRIFFIN v SCOTT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 85-273 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 WILLIWi J. GRIFFIN and BRENDA G. GRIFFIN, Plaintiffs and Respondents, KENNETH E. SCOTT and BARBARA SCOTT, 2. Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, Tn and for the County of Sanders, The Honorable C. B. McNeil, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Tipp, Hnven, Skjelset Missoula, Montana & Frizzell; Raymond P. Tipp, For Respondent : Baxter, Fletcher & Hanson; Robert L. Fletcher, Thompson Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: Aug. 15, 1985 Decided: November 6, 1985 Filed : , .1 , , ' .. '1985 J u s t i c e L. Court. Mr. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f C. Kenneth and Barbara Scott, appellants, the appeal the d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment e n t e r e d i n the Court District S a n d e r s County. and on easement over adjoining the Twentieth Judicial District, We affirm. William complaint of Earbara November an Griffin, 28, 1984, existing property. The respondents, claiming roadway filed a a prescriptive across appellants1 complaint and summons were p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d o n a p p e l l a n t s on December 5 , 1 9 8 4 , a t t h e i r home in mailed Wyoming. On about December 1984 appellants and o t h e r d o c u m e n t s t o t h e i r c o u n s e l , these H e l e f t f o r a two-week T i p p , i n M i s s o u l a , Montana. o n December 2 0 , January 4, Raymond vacation 1 9 8 4 , u n a w a r e t h a t t h e summons and c o m p l a i n t a r r i v e d a t h i s o f f i c e t h a t day. on 14, 1985, but did Tipp returned t o h i s o f f i c e not review the information a p p e l l a n t s had s e n t b e c a u s e o f t h e amount o f m a i l and o t h e r work which had accumulated. He did not discover d e f a u l t judgment h a d b e e n e n t e r e d o n J a n u a r y l l . , he reviewed the information from his a 1985, u n t i l h e saw a c r e d i t b u r e a u r e p o r t on F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 1 9 8 5 . time that At that clients and contacted respondents1 attorney t o request a s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t t h e judgment b e s e t a s i d e . H e then asked t h e D i s t r i c t Court, on F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1 9 8 5 , t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment o n t h e b a s i s of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect pursuant to R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , l4.R.Civ.P. Respondents opposed t h i s motion c i t i n g appel.lants' l a c k of diligence incoming m a i l . in addition t o counsells f a i l u r e t o read his A p p e l l a n t s had n o t r e s p o n d e d t o a l e t t e r from r e s p o n d e n t s m a i l e d A u g u s t 2 , 1984 w h i c h o u t l i n e d t h e p r o b l e m s between the parties attorney. They in detail also and u r g e d them t o c o n t a c t an declined to respond to a follow-up l e t t e r t h r e e weeks l a t e r a d v i s i n g them t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s w o u l d formally t o determine t h e e x t e n t o f t h e i r easement. proceed Even after they received appellants apparently did the nothing complaint and summons, to monitor t h e s t a t u s o f the suit. R e s p o n d e n t s f i l e d t h e i r m o t i o n f o r d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t on January 8, awarded respondents along 1985. the enjoined The edge judgment, an easement appellants1 of appellants from D i s t r i c t Court held entered over an existing property obstructing 11, 1 9 8 5 , January the and roadway permanently easement. a h e a r i n g on a p p e l l a n t s 1 m o t i o n a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment on March 2 6 , The t o set 1 9 8 5 and d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n on A p r i l 1 2 , 1 9 8 5 . A p p e l l a n t s r a i s e two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : (I) aside Whether the t h e D i s t r i c t Court default judgment on erred the by n o t basis of setting mistake, inadvertence or excusable n e g l e c t . W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had a u t h o r i t y t o e n t e r (2) a default judgment a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n w i t h o u t a prima in f a c i e showing o f a r i g h t t o easement by competent e v i d e n c e . The standard of review where a district court has d e n i e d a motion t o set a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t " i s t h a t no g r e a t abuse of Lords v. discretion Newman 1793, 1797. need (Mont. be shown to 1 9 8 4 ) , 688 P.2d warrant 290, 294, reversal." 4 1 St.Rep. Another s t a t e m e n t o f t h i s s t a n d a r d "is t h a t o n l y ' s l i g h t abuse1 i s s u f f i c i e n t t o r e v e r s e an o r d e r r e f u s i n g t o set aside a default." a t 293. (Citations omitted.) Lords, 688 P.2d The t e s t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e n e g l e c t i s e x c u s a b l e and s u f f i c i e n t t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t i s : ... whether t h e reasons given f o r t h e n e g l e c t a r e such t h a t r e a s o n a b l e minds might differ in their conclusions concerning excusable n e g l e c t . I f so, doubt should be resolved i n f a v o r o f a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . U n i t e d S t a t e s P-ubber Co. v. 139 P.2d Mont. Rubber, 36, the 39, 359 attorney's Community Gas & O i l Co. 375, neglect 376. In consisted of (1961), United S t a t e s his failure t o r e a d h i s m a i l f o r two o r t h r e e weeks " b e c a u s e of b e i n g b u s y , the holiday season, and t h e mistaken assumption t h a t t h e ( ~ m p hs i s a l e t t e r concerned a d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r . " original.) 139 Mont. a t 39. FJe h e l d in that the attorney's a c t i o n s w e r e i n e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t and t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had not aside abused the its discretion default judgment. in denying In a motion the case at to bar set the attorney's actions a r e surprisingly similar t o those a t issue The a t t o r n e y h e r e , i n h i s a f f i d a v i t , i n U n i t e d S t a t e Rubber. c i t e d t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f m a i l and work i n h i s o f f i c e and h i s absence over t h e Christmas holiday a s t h e reason f o r f a i l i n g t o r e a d h i s c l i e n t s ' l e t t e r f o r a b o u t f i v e weeks. During t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , he s t a t e d t h a t h e had n o t g i v e n t h e documents prompt a t t e n t i o n because, in his past dealings with appellants, g e n e r a l l y w e n t on f o r months and m o n t h s . not that an assumption matter, not problems Although t h i s i s t h e documents c o n c e r n e d a different t h e a t t o r n e y d i d m i s t a k e n l y assume t h e d o c u m e n t s d i d concern a matter difference is from opposj-ng an that requiring in prompt attention. U n i t e d S t a t e s Rubber attorney. However, the Another l e t t e r was these factual d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e two c a s e s . W e note also t h a t there a r e several other attorneys i n Tipp's according t o s i g n a t u r e s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f i l e , office, who could have complaint. reviewed in As the United mail and discovered S t a t e s Rubber, this the attorney's f a i l u r e t o r e a d h i s m a i l f o r f i v e weeks b e c a u s e o f work w h i c h had accumulated in his absence over a is holiday not excusable neglect. The n e g l e c t o f an a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l l y may b e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e c l i e n t e x c e p t where t h e a t t o r n e y ' s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s L o r d s , 688 P.2d a t 295, and t h e c l i e n t s " a c t u a l misconduct," are "blameless." Lords, a genera1 a t t o r n e y made 688 P.2d at appearance I n Lords, 296. in court on behalf the of c l i e n t s who had n o t b e e n s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s and who had n o t a u t h o r i z e d him t o a c t . clients attempted H e then disappeared to contact him and from s i g h t . The proceeded "with diligence t o r e c t i f y the court's action." L o r d s , 688 P.2d a t 296. not Here the misconduct o f an attorney's action does t h e a t t o r n e y i n Lords. a p p e a r a n c e was due the day approach the F u r t h e r , knowing t h a t after Christmas, appellants w a i t e d u n t i l a t l e a s t December 1 4 t o m a i l t h e p a p e r s t o t h e i r attorney and apparently did nothing t o check on the suit. N o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d shows t h e y l e t t h e i r a t t o r n e y know t h e matter would require circumstances, discretion In action MCA. in the as a the district refusing second quiet prompt issue, They c o n t e n d t h a t § court set a s i d e to title attention. Under did the not default appellants refer action under 70-28-108, abuse these its judgment. to plaintiffs' S 70-28-101 et.seq., MCA r e q u i r i n g p l a i n t i f f s " p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o prima f a c i e e n t i t l e [ t h e m ] t o r e l i e f " b e f o r e t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o a d e f a u l t d e c r e e was n o t satisfied. They c l a i m t h e p l a i n t i f f s p r o d u c e d no e v i d e n c e t o show t h e y w e r e e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , should be set aside. This ownership o f r e a l p r o p e r t y , o f t h e easement. t h u s t h e d e f a u l t judgment action did not adjudicate o r even a d j u d i c a t e t h e ownership The j u d g m e n t a d d r e s s e s o n l y t h e u s e o f t h e A s s u c h it r o a d w a y b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l s named a s p a r t i e s . is not a applies. quiet title action to which 70-28-108, § MA C W e t h e r e f o r e h o l d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had a u t h o r i t y t o e n t e r t h e d e f a u l t judgment. / The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e @ / ,/ / ' pp,2 Justice, - W e concur: 4 1
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.
