MORRIS v FRANK TRANSPORTATION CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14727 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 CLYDE MORRIS, PHYLLIS MORRIS, and DALE MORRIS, Plaintiffs and Respondents, FRANK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, and FJILLIAM FRANK, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull and Jones, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Berger, Anderson, Sinclair and Murphy, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: Decided: Filed: m .: W '77". . .- June 1,1979 OCT 2 5 7979 Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of the ~hirteenthJudicial District, the Honorable Robert H. Wilson presiding, denying defendants' motion to set aside default and granting plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment by default. Plaintiffs-respondents filed their complaint in this matter on January 16, 1979, seeking to recover wages and expenses for driving trips made on behalf of Frank Transportation Company, appellant herein. The complaint was personally served by a Yellowstone County deputy sheriff on appellant William Frank on January 18, 1979. demanded an amount certain. The complaint Appellants failed to answer and default was entered on February 8, 1979. Thereafter, on February 13, 1979, appellants entered an appearance by a motion to dismiss. The next day respondents filed a motion to enter judgment by default. This motion was noticed for hearing on February 23, 1979. A hearing was conducted at that time and appellant William Frank appeared and testified. During this hearing the District Court consolidated appellants' motion to dismiss with appellants' motion to set aside default for excusable neglect. There was no objection to this consolidation. In an effort to show excusable neglect, William Frank testified that he had been ill and had left it up to other people to run his business and to take care of the lawsuit. He further testified that he was in his office one day, found the complaint, and immediately took it to his attorneys. He also admitted that he was personally served with a copy of the complaint. A t t h e end o f t h e h e a r i n g t h e c o u r t t o o k t h e matter u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t and o n F e b r u a r y 27, 1979, e n t e r e d a n o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t and o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' motion t o e n t e r judgment by d e f a u l t b e granted. On F e b r u a r y 28, 1979, judgment by d e f a u l t w a s e n t e r e d by o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t . N o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment was m a i l e d t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s o n F e b r u a r y 28, 1979, and Frank T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Company and W i l l i a m Frank now appeal. The i s s u e f a c i n g t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e d e f a u l t and i n e n t e r i n g judgment by d e f a u l t . W i l l i a m Frank a l l e g e s t h a t b e c a u s e h e w a s ill and under a d o c t o r ' s c a r e , he l e f t h i s b u s i n e s s i n t h e c a r e of o t h e r s r e s u l t i n g i n h i s neglect of t h i s lawsuit. T h i s he contends was " e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t . " W e do n o t a g r e e . Rule 6 0 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., states t h a t a c o u r t may r e l i e v e a p a r t y from a f i n a l judgment upon a f i n d i n g of " (1) m i s t a k e , i n a d v e r t e n c e , s u r p r i s e , o r e x c u s a b l e neglect." A p p e l l a n t s c i t e a number o f c a s e s f o r t h e p r o p o s i - t i o n t h a t Rule 6 0 ( b ) i s t o b e l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d : C l u t e v . Concrete (1978), Mont. , 587 P.2d 392, 35 St.Rep. 1775; Big S p r i n g v. B l a c k f e e t T r i b e o f B l a c k f e e t , e t c . (1978) Mont. , 573 P.2d 655, 35 St.Rep. v . Hubbard ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 120 Mont. 45, 179 P.2d 533. 34; D a v i s While w e d o n o t d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e r u l e s i n t h e s e cases, s u f f i c e i t t o s a y t h a t t h e y a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e i n s t a n t case. A p p e l l a n t s h e r e have s i m p l y n o t shown e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e . There i s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t W i l l i a m Frank had s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d t h a t someone e l s e t a k e t h e c o m p l a i n t t o h i s a t t o r - n e y s , a s i n D a v i s v. Hubbard, s u p r a , n o r t h a t h e was h o s p i t a l i z e d o r t o o s i c k t o do it himself. F u r t h e r , t h e r e was n o t h i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t h e was n o t p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t a s i n C l u t e v . C o n c r e t e , s u p r a , n o r t h a t h e d i d n o t have n o t i c e of hearings a s i n Blackfeet Tribe, supra. A f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r due t o f o r g e t f u l n e s s and t h e p r e s s o f o t h e r , more i m p o r t a n t b u s i n e s s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h excusable neglect. Mont. 566, 386 P.2d 342, 343. Dudley v . S t i l e s ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 142 Even t h e most l i b e r a l a p p r o a c h t o t h i s problem c a n n o t s a v e a p p e l l a n t s ' case. ". . .A l i b e r a l c o u r t c a n n o t f i n d e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t where a d e f e n d a n t h a s w i l l i n g l y slumbered on h i s r i g h t s and i g n o r e d t h e j u d i c i a l machinery e s t a b l i s h e d by law." s u p r a , 386 P.2d a t 343. Dudley v . S t i l e s , "A motion t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment i s a d d r e s s e d t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t i n t e r f e r e e x c e p t upon a showi n g of m a n i f e s t abuse." Mont. , P u r i n g t o n v. Sound West ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 566 P.2d 795, 797, 34 St.Rep. no s u c h a b u s e h e r e . W e concur: 7Ad4t i$?$kw@ Chief J u s c e ustices I 579. W e find

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.