JACKSON v TINKER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12403 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1972 NORMA J . JACKSON, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , CHRISTINE T. TINKER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P a u l G. H a t f i e l d , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Wuerthner & Wuerthner, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, John P. Wuerthner a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. For Respondent: Loble, P i c o t t e , Loble, P a u l y and S t e r n h a g e n , Helena, Montana. . L e s t e r H Loble 11 a r g u e d , Helena, Montana. Submitted: Decided : F i l e d : Q E ~1; 1972 December 4, 1972 DEC 11.1972 PER CURIAM: T h i s m a t t e r comes a s a p e t i t i o n by a p p e l l a n t , Norma J. Jackson, who was p l a i n t i f f i n an a c t i o n i n Chouteau County, Cause No. 14022, e n t i t l e d Jackson v . T i n k e r . The p e t i t i o n r e c i . t e s t h a t on October 1 9 , 1972, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal i n t h a t cause. The a p p e a l was taken from an o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t which s t a t e d : 11 Hearing having been h e l d upon n o t i c e and a s p e c i a l appearance of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e E s t a t e of Thelma Lee S a u l C a r r i v e a u , Deceased, memoranda having been submitted by decedent ' s e s t a t e and defendant h e r e i n , p l a i n t i f f n o t h a v i n g responded and t h e time f o r s u b m i t t i n g f u r t h e r memoranda o t h e r w i s e e x p i r e d ; " P l a i n t i f f having f a i l e d t o respond t o t h e o r d e r s of t h e Court d a t e d August 1 7 , 1 9 7 1 , and A p r i l 1 2 , 1972 r e q u i r i n g p l a i n t i f f j o i n a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y and t o f i l e a memorandum; and i t a p p e a r i n g t o t h e Court t h a t s e r v i c e on t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p e s t a t e of Thelma Lee S a u l C a r r i v e a u , now deceased, h a s n o t been completed and s a i d p a r t y i s n e c e s s a r y f o r a j u s t a d j u d i c a t i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m , and t h a t t h e a c t i o n should n o t proceed among t h e p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e Court b u t r a t h e r be d i s m i s s e d , t h e a b s e n t p a r t y b e i n g i n d i s p e n s a b l e ; and i t a p p e a r i n g f u r t h e r t h a t s i n c e more t h a n e i g h t y e a r s have e x p i r e d s i n c e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m a r o s e , a j o i n d e r of s a i d i n d i s pensable p a r t y and p r o s e c u t i o n of t h e a c t i o n i s t h e r e f o r e b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s ; and t h e Court having c o n s i d e r e d t h e m a t t e r , t h e memoranda submitted by c o u n s e l and t h e r e c o r d of t h e proceedings h e r e i n , and b e i n g f u l l y a d v i s e d i n t h e p r e m i s e s , "IT I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t s a i d c a u s e i s dismissed f o r failure t o j o i n an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y ; and i t i s f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h a t s a i d d i s m i s s a l be w i t h p r e j u d i c e by r e a s o n of t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s a g a i n s t s a i d a b s e n t p a r t y . This Order i s a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a l l m a t t e r s b e f o r e t h e Court i n t h i s case. "DATED t h i s 24th day of August, 1972. ~ ~ G . HATFIELD "DISTRICT JUDGE" ~ ~ f f A n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment d a t e d August 28, 1972, was filed. This n o t i c e was f i l e d and s e r v e d by m a i l and was r e c e i v e d by c o u n s e l f o r a p p e l l a n t , p e t i t i o n e r h e r e , on August 30, 1972. Counsel f o r a p p e l l a n t s t a t e s t h a t a copy of t h e o r d e r r e c i t e d i n t h e n o t i c e was n o t a t t a c h e d . The n o t i c e r e a d s : "TO: THE PLAINTIFF, NORMA J . JACKSON, and t o h e r a t t o r n e y , JOHN P . WUERTHNER "You and each of you w i l l p l e a s e t a k e n o t i c e , and you, and each of you, a r e hereby n o t i f i e d , t h a t on t h e 24th day of August, 1972, Judgment was e n t e r e d i n t h e abovee n t i t l e d c a u s e i n f a v o r of t h e defendant and a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f , i n accordance w i t h t h e o r d e r of t h a t d a t e s i g n e d by Paul G, H a t f i e l d , t h e D i s t r i c t Judge p r e s i d i n g i n t h i s c a s e and t h a t a copy of s a i d o r d e r adjudging a d i s m i s s a l of t h e c a s e w i t h p r e j u d i c e i s h e r e t o a t t a c h e d and h e r e w i t h s e r v e d upon you. "DATED t h i s 28th day of August, 1972. "LOBLE, PICOTTE, LOBLE, PAULY & STERNHAGEN". I t appears on t h e f a c e of t h e r e c o r d s h e r e t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d on October 1 9 , 1972, was n o t t i m e l y , b e i n g some s i x weeks a f t e r n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment. The purpose of t h e p e t i t i o n h e r e i s t o seek a d e c l a r a t i o n by t h i s Court t h a t t h e time f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l from t h e o r d e r and judgment of d i s m i s s a l d i d n o t b e g i n t o run because t h e copy o f t h e o r d e r was n o t a t t a c h e d t o t h e n o t i c e a s r e c i t e d t h e r e i n . Upon r e c e i p t of t h e p e t i t i o n , t h i s Court made an o r d e r s e t t i n g t h e m a t t e r f o r argument, December 4 , 1972. O r a l argument was had on The Court does n o t have t h e o r i g i n a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e b u t does have c o p i e s of t h e documents, a s a t t a c h e d exhibits. The p o s i t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t , C h r i s t i n e T. T i n k e r , i s t h a t t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment quoted above, w i t h o r w i t h o u t a t t a c h ment, i s adequate and s t a r t e d t h e time r u n n i n g ; and t h u s t h e a p p e a l was n o t t i m e l y and should be d i s m i s s e d . Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P., reads: "(d) NOTICE O ENTRY O JUDGMENT SERVED. Within F F 10 days a f t e r e n t r y of judgment i n an a c t i o n i n which an appearance h a s been made. n o t i c e of such e n t r y , t o g e t h e r w i t h a copy of such judgment o r a s e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e n a t u r e and amount o f r e l i e f and damages t h e r e b y g r a n t e d , s h a l l be s e r v e d by t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y upon t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . The n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment h e r e t o f o r e quoted i n f u l l , states i n part: ": J ? ;?Judgment w a s e n t e r e d i n -Pie r:f;ave-entitled ; c a u s e i n f a v o r of t h e defend:^^' a:-,: a g a i n s t t h e D l a i n t i f f . 9 9 " and i't ik ik a ~ o p yoi! s a i d o r d e r : : a d j u d g i n g z a d i s m i s s a l of t h e cake2iith prejudic~ .: i s hereby a t t a c h e d JC 9 i?". (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) 6% Under Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ,P,, i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o s?-:ve a copy of the j u d g n e i ~ tupon t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y . n e c e s s a r y <:, se?:ve a 11 I t i s only g e n e r a l d ( ? s c r i p t i o n of t h e n a t u r e and amount of r e l i e f and damages t l . ~ x c ? b y r a n t e d . " g Judge. H a t f i e l d The n o t i c e of e n t r y of judg- dismissed t h e c a s e w i t h p r e j u d i c e . ment s t a t e d t h a t Judge H a t f i e l d dismissed t h e c a s e w i t h p r e j u d i c e . This i s s u f f i c i e n t under Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. Time f o r f i l i n g n o t i c e of a p p e a l i s t h i r t y days. 14.K.App.Civ.P. Rule 5 , Under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s (excusable n e g l e c t ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may extend t h e time 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 f o r a p e r i o d n o t t o exceed t h i r t y 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 time p r e s c r i b e d by Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P. Here, no such e x t e n s i o n was g r a n t e d , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was an o r d e r s i g n e d on October 26, 1972, g r a n t i n g c o u n s e l f o r app e l l a n t u n t i l November 1 0 , 1 9 7 2 , w i t h i n which " t o e f f e c t t h e composition of t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . t i o n under Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P., 11 T h i s was n o t a n a p p l i c a - n o r was i t made upon e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t , n o r d i d i t concern t h e time f o r f i l i n g of a p p e a l . It simply was an o r d e r r e g a r d i n g t h e composition of t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l and presumably was made p u r s u a n t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o extend time t o t r a n s m i t t h e r e c o r d under Rule Inasmuch a s t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l was n o t f i l e d f o r some s i x weeks f o l l o w i n g t h e n o t i c e o f e n t r y of judgment, i t was n o t timely. Accordingly, t h e a p p e a l was n o t t i m e l y made. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly, deeming h i m s e l f d i s q u a l i f i e d , took no p a r t i n t h i s Opinion.

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.