ROSEN v MIDKIFF
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12550 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F 1974 IRMA ANN ROSEN, formerly IRMA ANN CRUM; GRACE J . WEEKS, formerly GRACE J. CRUM; and MARY ELLEN KOCH, formerly MARY ELLEN CRUM, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , JOHN L. MIDKIFF, SR., and J . L. MIDKIFF, a l s o known a s J O H N L. MIDKIFF , J R . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A l f r e d B. Coate, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Kenneth R. Wilson argued, Miles C i t y , Montana For Respondents : William F . Meisburger argued, F o r s y t h , Montana Submitted : January 18, 1974 Decided : Filed: Ej3 Z 8 '874 . I"EB 2 8 :ypf '1 Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f s , Irma Ann Rosen, Grace J. Weeks and Mary E l l e n Koch, from a judgment r e n d e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s i x t e e n 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 Rosebud upon t h e g r a n t i n g of a motion f o r summary judgment made by t h e d e f e n d a n t s , John L . M i d k i f f , S r . and John L. M i d k i f f , Jr. There a r e two d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e s which by s t i p u l a t i o n a r e before t h i s Court. I n 1955 a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n , John L . M i d k i f f , e t a l . v . Irma Ann Rosen, e t a l . , was f i l e d i n Rosebud County a s C i v i l No. 6253. I n 1969 a n o t h e r a c t i o n was commenced by t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n C i v i l No. 6253 t o v a c a t e t h e judgment e n t e r ed i n C i v i l No. 6253 i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f s , M i d k i f f , e t a l . The 1969 a c t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s C i v i l No. 7453. H e r e i n a f t e r , Irma Ann Rosen, Grace J . Weeks and Mary E l l e n Koch, t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n C i v i l No. 6253, t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n C i v i l No. 7453 and a p p e l l a n t s h e r e i n w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s Rosens, and John L. M i d k i f f , S r . and John L. M i d k i f f , J r . , t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n C i v i l No. 6253, t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n C i v i l No. 7453 and r e s p o n d e n t s h e r e i n w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s M i d k i f f s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e i n C i v i l No. 6253 shows t h e following p e r t i n e n t f a c t s : answered by t h e Rosens. The c o m p l a i n t i n t h i s c a u s e w a s For r e a s o n s unknown, t h e c a s e remained dormant f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . On September 2 0 , 1967, p e t i t i o n and a f f i d a v i t s i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f w e r e f i l e d by M i d k i f f s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947. On t h a t same d a y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r d i r e c t i n g Rosens t o show c a u s e why t h e y s h o u l d n o t be d i r e c t e d t o d e p o s i t t h e sum of $2,712.94 t o t h e u s e of M i d k i f f s , a s t a x p u r c h a s e r s i n t h e e v e n t M i d k i f f s ' c l a i m t o t h e r e a l property should n o t succeed. t o R. C . Harken, E s q . , County T r e a s u r e r . T h i s o r d e r was m a i l e d a t t o r n e y f o r Rosens and t o t h e Rosebud One p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e o r d e r was made i n t h e - 2 - F o r s y t h I n d e p e n d e n t a s i s shown by a f f i d a v i t . On September 29, 1967, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t q u i e t e d t i t l e i n M i d k i f f s a s t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s , e x c e p t t h e Rosens. The h e a r i n g on t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e was h e l d on October 11, 1967. As to t h i s h e a r i n g t h e m i n u t e e n t r y of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e a d s : "Hearing on Order t o Show Cause. A f f i d a v i t of P u b l i c a t i o n h a s been f i l e d h e r e i n showing due n o t i c e g i v e n . W i l l i a m F. Meisburger sworn and presented proof. Order r e q u i r i n g a d e p o s i t of $2,712.94 from t h e answering d e f e n d a n t s i s s i g n e d . D e p o s i t t o be made no l a t e r t h a n November 1 2 , 1967. L e t t h e r e c o r d show t h a t M r s . Roe, of Lewistown, I d a h o , one of t h e def e n d a n t s named i n t h e above e n t i t l e d c a u s e f o r m e r l y b e a r i n g t h e name of Rosen, a p p e a r e d i n c o u r t by h e r c o u n s e l , R. C . Harken and made no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e P e t i t i o n f o r t h e r e q u i r e ment o f D e p o s i t , w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s would s t i l l have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p e a r i n s a i d c a u s e and answer and c o n t e s t t h e c l a i m of t h e p l a i n t i f f . Order i s s i g n e d . " N d e p o s i t was made w i t h i n t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d . o By s u p p l e - m e n t a l and f i n a l d e c r e e o f November 1 7 , 1967, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment f o r M i d k i f f s and a g a i n s t Rosens q u i e t i n g t i t l e t o t h e lands i n d i s p u t e i n t h e Midkiffs. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e i n C i v i l No. 7453 r e v e a l s t h a t on October 21, 1969, t h i s c a u s e w a s commenced by Rosens t o a t t a c k t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n C i v i l No. 6253. I n A p r i l 1970, M i d k i f f s f i l e d t h e i r answer and a motion f o r summary judgment. On J u n e 26, 1970, Rosens f i l e d a motion f o r l e a v e t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t and a n amended c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d on December 1 5 , 1972, which i n substance alleged: t h a t t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e i s s u e d on Septem- b e r 2 0 , 1967, was m a i l e d t o R . C . Harken, a t t h a t t i m e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e Rosens and t h a t p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e was n o t made o f t h i s o r d e r . on Rosens n o r was t h e o r d e r p o s t e d a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947; t h a t R. C . Harken, by l e t t e r o f October 7 , 1967, forwarded a copy of t h e o r d e r t o e a c h of t h e a p p e l l a n t s b u t t h a t o n l y o n e o f them Irma Ann Rosen, r e c e i v e d t h e l e t t e r p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g d a t e ; and t h a t by t h e d e c r e e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t def a u l t judgment was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t Rosens w i t h o u t n o t i c e of w r i t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r judgment, a s p r o v i d e d by Rule 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , M.R.Civ.P. and t h a t n e i t h e r R . C . Harken n o r t h e Rosens r e c e i v e d n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment a s r e q u i r e d by Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. On December 20, 1972, M i d k i f f s f i l e d t h e i r answer t o t h e amended c o m p l a i n t and a c o u n t e r c l a i m . Midkiffs denied t h a t p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e was n o t made and t h a t t h e r e was no p o s t i n g a s r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e , and d e n i e d t h a t t h e o r d e r of October 11, 1967 was n o t s e r v e d . The o n l y new a l l e g a t i o n i n ~ i d k i f f s ' c o u n t e r - c l a i m was t h a t t h e judgment a g a i n s t Rosens i n C i v i l No. 6253 was n o t a d e f a u l t judgment and Rule 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , M.R.Civ.P. d i d n o t apply. O March 6 , 1973, M i d k i f f s moved f o r summary judgment, n and on March 30, 1973, t h e motion was h e a r d . t a k e n by M i d k i f f s of t h e Rosens. I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were On May 1 5 , 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and g r a n t e d M i d k i f f s ' motion f o r summary judgment and d i s m i s s e d Rosens' complaint with prejudice. Rosens moved t o amend t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w which w a s d e n i e d . Rosens have a p p e a l e d . Rosens p r e s e n t two i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w , b o t h of which can be summarized a s f o l l o w s : Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n g r a n t i n g t h e motion f o r summary judgment? Rosens c o n t e n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d n o t have g r a n t e d t h e summary judgment f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P., which r e q u i r e s s e r v i c e of n o t i c e o f e n t r y of judgment, was n o t f o l l o w e d i n C i v i l No. 6253, and t h e r e was no showing o f said service. The p u r p o s e of Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. i s obviously t o i n f o r m a p a r t y t h a t a judgment h a s been e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him and t h e n a t u r e and amount of r e l i e f and damages t h e r e b y g r a n t e d . P u r s u a n t t o Rule 81, M.R.Civ.P., c e r t a i n s t a t u t o r y proceedings l i s t e d i n T a b l e A , M.R.Civ.P. where i n c o n s i s t e n t . t a k e precedence over t h e r u l e s S e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947 i s s o l i s t e d and p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : "Upon t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e t h e c o u r t s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e s a i d amount and t o make a n o r d e r t h a t t h e same be p a i d i n t o c o u r t w i t h i n a g i v e n t i m e , n o t exc e e d i n g t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e making of s a i d o r d e r . I f s u c h amount, when s o d e t e r m i n e d , s h a l l n o t be p a i d w i t h i n t h e t i m e f i x e d by s a i d c o u r t , t h e n s a i d t r u e owner s h a l l be deemed t o have waived any d e f e c t i n t h e t a x p r o c e e d i n g s and any r i g h t o f redemption, and t h e r e u p o n , i r r e s p e c t i v e of any i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , d e f e c t s o r omissions o r t o t a l f a i l u r e t o o b s e r v e any of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e s of Montana r e g a r d i n g t h e a s s e s s m e n t , l e v y i n g of t a x e s , o r s a l e of p r o p e r t y f o r t a x e s , and t h e g i v i n g of n o t i c e s , i n c l u d i n g n o t i c e s o f r e d e m p t i o n , o r c o n c e r n i n g t a x d e e d s , whether o r n o t such o m i s s i o n s o r f a i l u r e s make s a i d proceedings void (other than t h a t t h e taxes w e r e not d e l i n q u e n t o r have been p a i d ) , t h e t i t l e o f s u c h t r u e owner s h a l l n o t be q u i e t a s a g a i n s t s a i d p u r c h a s e r o r h i s s u c c e s s o r s , and a d e c r e e s h a l l be e n t e r e d i n s a i d a c t i o n q u i e t i n g t h e t i t l e of s a i d purchaser o r h i s successor a s a g a i n s t s a i d t r u e owner." According t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t m i n u t e s o f October 11, 1967, R. C . Harken a p p e a r e d on October 11, 1967, and was a d v i s e d i n open c o u r t of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o d e p o s i t t h e sum of $2,712.94 by November 1 2 , 1967, would r e s u l t i n t h e e n t r y o f judgment. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t m i n u t e s f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e t h a t R. C . Harken a p p e a r e d f o r t h e " d e f e n d a n t s " (Rosens) . It i s further n o t e d t h a t a t t o r n e y Harken made no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e p e t i t i o n , w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s would s t i l l have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p e a r i n t h e c a u s e and answer and c o n t e s t t h e claim. The r e c o r d shows t h a t a t a l l t i m e s p r i o r t o and i n c l u d i n g t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g on t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e , Rosens w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d by a t t o r n e y Harken. Rosens, t h r o u g h t h e i r a t t o r n e y , had n o t i c e t h a t i f t h e y d i d n o t d e p o s i t t h e sum r e q u i r e d , a d e c r e e p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947, would be e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them q u i e t i n g t i t l e i n Midkiffs. was e n t e r e d . The d e p o s i t was n o t made and t h e d e c r e e I t i s t h i s C o u r t ' s view t h a t i t would be redun- d a n t t o r e q u i r e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R=Civ.P. under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e , t h e r e b e i n g n o t i c e t h a t a d e c r e e would be e n t e r e d i f t h e money was n o t d e p o s i t e d . By r e a s o n o f Rosens' own f a i l u r e t o d e p o s i t t h e money, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e decree quieting t i t l e i n Midkiffs. For Rosens now t o s a y t h a t t h e y s h o u l d have been g i v e n n o t i c e of t h i s e n t r y of judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. i s without merit. Rosens a l s o c o n t e n d t h a t t h e motion f o r summary judgment s h o u l d n o t have been g r a n t e d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h e o r d e r o f October 11, 1967, was i n v a l i d b e c a u s e of l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n under s e c t i o n 84-4158, supra. Rosens a r g u e t h a t b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no showing t h a t t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e of September 2 0 , 1967 was p o s t e d i n t h r e e p u b l i c p l a c e s t e n d a y s b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g d a t e , s e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947, was n o t f o l l o w e d . A s t o t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e of September 2 0 , 1967, sec- t i o n 84-4158 s t a t e s : " I n any a c t i o n now pending, o r h e r e a f t e r b r o u g h t t o s e t a s i d e o r a n n u l any t a x d e e d , o r t o q u i e t t i t l e * * * t h e p u r c h a s e r o r h i s s u c c e s s o r upon f i l i n g a n a f f i d a v i t may o b t a i n from t h e c o u r t an o r d e r d i r e c t e d t o t h e person claiming t h e property * * * o r t o show c a u s e on a d a t e t o be f i x e d i n s a i d o r d e r , n o t e x c e e d i n g t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s from t h e d a t e t h e r e o f , why such payments s h o u l d n o t be made. S a i d a f f i d a v i t s h a l l s e t f o r t h t h e p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e of s a i d t r u e owners and whether t h e y a r e i n t h e s t a t e of Montana, i f known t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , o r t h a t t h e same i s n o t known t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . " S a i d o r d e r s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k and a copy s e r v e d p e r s o n a l l y upon a l l p e r s o n s shown i n s a i d a f f i d a v i t t o b e r e s i d e n t s o f and i n t h e s t a t e of Montana, and j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l be a c q u i r e d o v e r a l l o t h e r p e r s o n s by p u b l i s h i n g t h e same o n c e i n a newspaper i n t h e c o u n t y , and by p o s t i n g t h e same i n t h r e e (3) p u b l i c p l a c e s i n t h e county a t l e a s t t e n ( 1 0 ) d a y s b e f o r e t h e day f i x e d f o r t h e h e a r i n g and by l e a v i n g a copy w i t h t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r . " S e c t i o n 84-4158, R.C.M. 1947,requires a nonresident t o be n o t i f i e d of t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e by h a v i n g i t p u b l i s h e d i n a newspaper i n t h e c o u n t y and by p o s t i n g t h e same i n t h r e e p u b l i c p l a c e s i n t h e county a t l e a s t t e n days before t h e d a t e s e t f o r hearing. The i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o t h e t h r e e a p p e l l a n t s show i d e n t i c a l answers t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : " * * * Please s t a t e a l l proof and e v i d e n c e t h a t you have knowledge of t h a t s a i d o r d e r t o show c a u s e was n o t p r o p e r l y p o s t e d . " T h e i r answers were u n i f o r m l y t h a t t h e i r a t t o r n e y d i d n o t f i n d an a f f i d a v i t of p o s t i n g i n t h e f i l e and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , "we assume t h a t it was not posted." The presumption i n f a v o r of t h e p o s t i n g by t h e c l e r k , w h i l e r e b u t t a b l e , i s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 93-1301-7(15), R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s , "That o f f i c i a l d u t y h a s been r e g u l a r l y performed. I' I t i s t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n t h a t a mere assumption i n t h e a b s e n c e of a n a f f i d a v i t i n t h e c o u r t f i l e i s n o t t h e t y p e of proof which i s n e c e s s a r y t o o v e r r i d e t h e presumption t h a t t h e a c t was o f f i c i a l l y performed i n a r o u t i n e and r e g u l a r manner, and t o have r e c e i v e d t h e answer by a p p e l l a n t s i n t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r y was ample i n d i c a t i o n t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e r e was no o t h e r p r o o f . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y concluded t h a t t h e Rosens were a t a l l t i m e s under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Rule 56 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides i n p a r t : " * * * The judgment s o u g h t s h a l l be r e n d e r e d f o r t h w i t h i f t h e pleadings, d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e show t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. * * * " A s t h i s C o u r t i n S t e n s v a d v . Miners & Merchants Bank of Roundup, Mont .- 517 , P.2d 715, 30 St.Rep. 1178, 1 1 8 2 , s t a t e d : Rule I1under/56 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., t h e moving p a r t y f o r summary judgment must b e a r t h e burden of p r o v i n g t h e a b s e n c e o f any g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a l l m a t e r i a l f a c t s which would, as a m a t t e r of law, e n t i t l e him t o judgment. Kober v. K y r i s s v. B i l l i n g s Deaconess H o s p i t a l , 148 Mont. 117, 417 P.2d 476." From o u r e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e r e c o r d h e r e i n , t h a t i s , t h e p l e a d i n g s , Rosens'answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e i n C i v i l No. 6253, and from o u r d i s c u s s i o n of t h e c o n t e n t i o n s p r e s e n t e d by Rosens, it i s o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and M i d k i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e judgment,of the district court i s affirmed. ,-i---------------- Chief J u s t i c e W concur: e *- ."+. ",.* ---- ,bd; ----- P ' -"S~.J,"~~---L-L'-2! --A --- ' - L* >,I ' i f J -,?. ----is,---*---ii* -----
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.
