HADFORD v HADFORD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-268 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1980 W N E L D. E DL HADFORD, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , ELIZABETH M. HADFORD, Defendant and Respondent. D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Appeal from: District, I n and f o r t h e County o f G a l l a t i n Hon. W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Landoe, Brown, P l a n a l p , Komrners and L i n e b e r g e r , Bozeman, Montana F o r Respondent: Morrow, S e d i v y , Olson and S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : August 7 , 1980 Decided: Filed: AUG S Ti 198Q . lisiuwyClerk AUG 2 7 1980 ORDER AND O P I N I O N J u s t i c e John C . Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Order and Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. A p p e l l a n t Wendell D. Hadford a p p l i e s t o t h i s C o u r t f o r r e l i e f from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d a t e d J u l y 23, 1980, r e q u i r i n g a p p e l l a n t t o f i l e i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h i n f i v e d a y s of t h e o r d e r a s u p e r s e d e a s bond and a l s o p r o v i d i n g t h a t i f he f a i l e d t o f i l e t h e s u p e r s e d e a s bond, a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l would be g r a n t e d . The o r i g i n a l a c t i o n i s c a u s e no. 21177, pending i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth D i s t r i c t , f o r G a l l a t i n County. Wendell D. Hadford, as p l a i n t i f f , was o r d e r e d i n a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on A p r i l 2 9 , 1980, t o e x e c u t e a deed t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , E l i z a b e t h M. Hadford, t o c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Bozeman, G a l l a t i n County, and a b i l l o f s a l e f o r a laundromat s i t u a t e d i n t h a t c i t y , t o pay E l i z a b e t h M. Hadford $3,554.44 f o r d e l i n q u e n t s u p p o r t payments f o r c h i l d r e n , and t o pay a t t o r n e y f e e s . Wendell Hadford f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on May 21, 1980. On J u l y 9 , 1980, E l i z a b e t h Hadford moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t Wendell had f a i l e d t o f i l e an u n d e r t a k i n g o r s u p e r s e d e a s bond i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s a p p e a l . On J u l y 1 7 , 1980, an u n d e r t a k i n g f o r c o s t s of a p p e a l was f i l e d by Wendell b u t no s u p e r s e d e a s bond h a s been f u r n i s h e d by him. E l i z a b e t h f i l e d h e r motion t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l b e c a u s e a s u p e r s e d e a s bond had n o t been f i l e d n o r had t h e deed been e x e c u t e d w i t h i n t h e t e n days r e q u i r e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l D i s t r i c t Court order. Wendell t h e r e u p o n f i l e d h i s o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e motion t o d i s m i s s and a p p l i e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a s t a y of judgment p u r s u a n t t o t h e Rule 7 ( a ) , M.R.App.Civ.P. I t was a f t e r t h e s e motions t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t e n t e r e d t i t s o r d e r of J u l y 23, 1980, r e q u i r i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t t o f i l e a s u p e r s e d e a s bond on t h e p e n a l t y of h a v i n g h i s a p p e a l t o t h i s Court dismissed a f t e r f i v e days. -2- he single issue raised is whether the District Court has the power to dismiss the appeal because the appellant has not filed a supersedeas bond. Resolution of the issue requires an examination of the provisions of the Montana Rules of Appellate Civil Procedure respecting supersedeas bonds. Under Rule 4(a), M.R.App.Civ.P., an appeal is taken by filing the notice of appeal in the District Court. It is further stated in that rule that the failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the Supreme Court deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal. Under the Montana Rules of Appellate Civil Procedure, therefore, the only jurisdictional step required of an appellant to vest the Supreme Court with authority in the cause is the filing of the notice of appeal. By virtue of the same rule, the failure to take any other step in connection with the appeal, which would include the filing of a supersedeas bond, is subject only to such action as the Supreme Court may take. It is exclusively in the province of the Supreme Court under Rule 4(a), M.R.App.Civ.P., as to whether an appeal should be dismissed for failure to take additional steps, once jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is vested by the filing of the notice of the appeal. In this case the District Court was operating under Rule 7, M.R.App.Civ.P. That rule generally relates to the powers of the District Court with respect to undertakings and supersedeas bonds after a judgment has been entered in the District Court. Generally speaking the rule provides that the District Court may grant an ex parte stay of execution after the judgment is entered for such period of time and upon such conditions as the District Court deems proper. Once the service of the notice of appeal has been accomplished, then the District Court may on application of the appellant, order a stay of execution for a longer period, provided the appellant presents to the District Court a supersedeas bond conditioned upon satisfaction of a judgment or order in full, together with costs, interest and damages for delay, if for any reason the appeal is dismissed, or if the judgment or order of the District Court is affirmed. Two other provisions of Rule 7(a), M.R.App.Civ.P., relate to the case here. Rule 7(a), also states that when the judgment is for the recovery of money not otherwise secured, the amount of the bond shall be fixed by the District Court at such sum as will cover the whole amount of the judgment remaining unsatisfied, costs on appeal, and interest and damages for delay, unless the District Court after hearing determines a different amount is proper. In addition, the rule provides that if the judgment determines the disposition of property, the amount of the supersedeas bond shall be fixed at such sum as will secure for the judgment holder, an amount for the use and detention of the property, costs of action, costs of appeal, interest and damages for delay. Clearly under Rule 7, M.R.App.Civ.P., the ~istrict Court is given the power to stay the execution of a judgment entered in its court and has broad discretion in fixing the amount of supersedeas bond upon which the stay of execution may be conditioned. Just as clearly, however, the ~istrict Court has no authority to order the dismissal of an appeal, which authority is in the exclusive province of the Supreme Court. We held that a District Court could not dismiss an appeal for the failure to file a supersedeas bond in Bryant Development Association v. Dagel (1974), 166 Mont. 8, 531 P.2d 1319. -4- When t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o v i d e s f o r a s u p e r s e d e a s bond, and t h e s u p e r s e d e a s bond i s n o t f i l e d , t h e n of c o u r s e , t h e r e i s no s t a y o f e x e c u t i o n , and t h e r e i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e judgment h o l d e r a l l o f h i s r i g h t s and remedies o f a t t a c h m e n t and e x e c u t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e of s e c u r i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e judgment. T h i s i s p r o v i d e d i n Rule 6 4 , M.R.Civ.P., which states: "At t h e commencement o f and d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f an a c t i o n , a l l remedies p r o v i d i n g f o r s e i z u r e o f p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y f o r t h e p u r p o s e of s e c u r i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e judgment u l t i m a t e l y t o b e e n t e r e d i n t h e a c t i o n are a v a i l a b l e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d by law." I n a d d i t i o n , Rule 70, M.R.Civ.P., provides t h a t i f a judgment d i r e c t s a p a r t y t o e x e c u t e a conveyance of l a n d o r t o p e r f o r m any o t h e r s p e c i f i c a c t , and t h e p a r t y f a i l s t o comply w i t h i n t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may d i r e c t t h e a c t t o b e done a t t h e c o s t o f t h e d i s o b e d i e n t p a r t y by some o t h e r p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d by t h e c o u r t , and t h e a c t when s o done h a s l i k e e f f e c t a s i f done by t h e p a r t i e s . These remedies, o f c o u r s e , a r e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e judgment h o l d e r where no s u p e r s e d e a s bond h a s been p r o v i d e d , and no s t a y o f judgment e x i s t s . T h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d a t e d J u l y 23, 1980, which s t a t e s t h a t , " f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e s u p e r s e d e a s bond s h a l l r e s u l t i n t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e motion t o dismiss" i s hereby vacated. The remainder of s u c h o r d e r s h a l l be and remain i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t . Neither p a r t y s h a l l recover c o s t s f o r t h i s proceeding u n t i l t h e e v e n t u a l d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e appeal. The c l e r k of t h i s C o u r t s h a l l c a u s e a copy of t h i s o r d e r and o p i n i o n t o be m a i l e d t o t h e c l e r k of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h 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 County o f G a l l a t i n , i n c a u s e no. 21177, pending i n t h a t D i s t r i c t Court. DATED this day of August, 1980. Justice We Concur: Chief Justice i /

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.