KAMP IMP CO v AMSTERDAM LUMBER C
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12811 I N THE SU1W2ME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 197 5 lUMP IMPLEMENT COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n , T O A J. HMS KAMP and FENNA H. KAMP, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vs - AMSTERDAM LUMBER, I N C ., Defendant and Respondent. D i s t r i c t Court 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 , Honorable Edward D u s s a u l t , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: ,2ounsel o f Record : For Appellants : B e n n e t t and B e n n e t t , Bozeman, Montana Lyman H. B e n n e t t Jr. a r g u e d and Lyman B e n n e t t , I11 a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana F o r Respondent: k D r y s d a l e , M c l e a n and S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana James A . M , l e a n a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana c submitted: Decided : Filed : &ypR u (jib March 5 , 1975 WPR '1 0 1975 Br. J u s L i c e Idesley " a s ~ l e sd e l i v e r e d t h e 3 p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l i s from a n o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e Hon. Edward l ' . 3 u s s a u l t , s i t t i n g i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, c o n f i r m i n g a judgment e n t e r e d by Hon. J a c k D . S h a n s t r o m , d a t e d July 2 5 , 1 9 7 3 , i n f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t Amsterdam Lumber, I n c . , and a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f s Kamp Implement Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , Thomas J . Kamp and Fenna H . a s Yarnp). Kamp ( h e r e i n a f t e r c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o f c o n f i r m i n g t h a t judgment, a p p e l - l a n t s r e q u e s t a new t r i a l . The m a t e r i a l s e q u e n c e of e v e n t s l e a d i n g t o t h e i n s t a n t as cioii was: O c t o b e r 29, 1971: Amsterdam Lumber f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n G a l L a t i n County d i s t r i c t c o u r t , c a u s e number 19818. Basically t h e complaint prayed f o r f o r e c l o s u r e of a mechanics' l i e n and f o r t h e b a l a n c e o f moneys owned o n a s t e e l b u i l d i n g s o l d t o Kamp by Amsterdam Lumber. October 30, 1971: Thomas J . Kamp and Kamp Implement Com- pdny w e r e s e r v e d w i t h summons and c o m p l a i n t . November 2 , 1971: Fenna H . Kamp was s e r v e d w i t h summons and z o m p l a i n t . F e b r u a r y 28, 1972: A f t e r e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e court, Hon. W. W. L e s s l e y e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t Kamp and f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d f o r f o r e c l o s u r e by s a l e o f t h e p r o p e r t y upon h n i c h t h e l i e n was f i l e d . March 8 , 1972: No a p p e a r a n c e was e v e r e n t e r e d by Kamp. Kamp f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e deiault. March 2 2 , 1972: A f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n , J u d g e !,essley i s s u e d an o r d e r denying t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t . March 31, 1972: Kamp i n s t i t u t e d t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n , G a l l a t i n County c a u s e number 20055, s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment i n c a u s e number 19818 on t h e b a s i s t h a t f r a u d had been committed i n t h a t Amsterdam Lumber f a i l e d t o a d v i s e t h e court : a) T h a t t h e p r o p e r t y upon which t h e l i e n was f i l e d was n o t t h e p r o p e r t y upon which t h e b u i l d i n g was c o n s t r u c t e d ; b) of c e r t a i n b u s i n e s s t r a n s a c t i o n s between t h e p a r t i e s ; c) t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g was d e f e c t i v e ; and d) of t h e d i s a b i l i t y of Thomas J . Kamp b e c a u s e of a h e a r t condition. Events p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s appeal occurring a f t e r t h e f i l i n g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t i n G a l l a t i n County c a u s e number 20055 and t h r o u g h t h e t i m e of t h i s C o u r t ' s opinion i n t h e c a s e , S t a t e ex r e l . Amsterdam Lumber, I n c . v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 163 Mont. 1 8 2 , 516 P.2d 378, 379-381, 383, 30 St.Rep. 1018, a r e r e c i t e d t h e r e i n . These e v e n t s , m a t e r i a l t o o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , o c c u r r e d subsequent t o t h e C o u r t ' s opinion: A p r i l 25, 1974: Hon. Edward T . D u s s a u l t assumed j u r i s - J u n e 1 4 , 1974: A h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e J u d g e D u s s a u l t . J u n e 2 4 , 1974: J u d g e D u s s a u l t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t diction. and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , c o n c l u d i n g " t h a t by r e a s o n of t h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s c a s e , t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d make and e n t e r a n a p p e a l a b l e O r d e r " . H e t h e n o r d e r e d Judge B l a i r ' s o r d e r , d a t e d September 2 1 , 1973, s e t a s i d e a s v o i d ; c o n f i r m e d t h e 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 o f l a w of J u d g e Shanstrom d a t e d J u l y 11, 1973; c o n f i r m e d t h e judgment o f J u d g e Shanstrom d a t e d J u l y 25, 1973; a n d , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , o r d e r e d a new t r i a l . Kamp on a p p e a l p r e s e n t s f i v e i s s u e s : (1) Did J u d g e D u s s a u l t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make t h e o r d e r d a t e d J u n e 2 4 , 1974? (2) I s t h e judgment e n t e r e d by J u d g e B l a i r on O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 7 3 , a v a l i d judgment? (3) I s t h i s c a s e moot on t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 58-423, R.C.M. 1947? Did J u d g e S h a n s t r o m err i n e n t e r i n g h i s o r d e r (4) nunc p r o t u n c , d a t e d J u l y 11, 1973? (5) Is t h e r e sub s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t a judgment i n f a v o r o f Kamp? Mamp's i s s u e s 2 a n d 3 were d e t e r m i n e d i n t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n S t a t e e x r e l . Amsterdam Lumber, I n c . v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 1 6 3 Mont. 1 8 2 , 516 P.2d 378, 381, 30 S t . R e p . 1 0 1 8 , i n t h i s manner: "The s e c o n d i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e i s s u e s p e t i t i o n e r r a i s e s i n t h i s C o u r t a r e moot. Mootness h e r e i s bottomed on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e judgment e n t e r e d by J u d g e B l a i r . F o r r e a s o n s t h a t w i l l a p p e a r i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e f i n a l i s s u e , t h a t judgment i s v o i d a n d o f no f o r c e and e f f e c t . Hence it c o u l d n o t b e s a t i s f i e d by d e p o s i t a n d n o t i c e and t h e i s s u e s p u r p o r t e d l y concluded t h e r e b y remain f o r adjudication." The l a w w i t h r e s p e c t t o i s s u e s 2 and 3 was w e l l s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t i n Anderson v . B o r d e r , 87 Mont. 4 , 8 , 285 P . 174: "The g r e a ter p o r t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t I s e x h a u s t i v e b r i e f i s devoted t o a n attempt t o demonstrate t h a t our former o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s erroneous, b u t t h e s h o r t answer i s t h a t a s t o a l l p o i n t s which were d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n , and were p a s s e d upon, i n t h e f o r m e r a p p e a l , and which a r e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e , w h e t h e r t h e o p i n i o n i s r i g h t o r wrong, it i s t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , was b i n d i n g upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and i s b i n d i n g upon u s . " S e e : L i b i n v . H u f f i n e , 124 Mont. 361, 364, 224 P.2d 1 4 4 ; C e n t r a l Montana S t o c k y a r d s v.. F r a s e r , 1 3 3 Mont. 1 6 8 , 1 8 7 , 320 P.2d 981; G a f f n e y v . I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t B o a r d , 133 Mont. 448, 450, 324 P.2d 1 0 6 3 . While Kamp was n o t a named p a r t y i n o u r S t a t e e x r e l . A m s t e r d a m Lumber d e c i s i o n , it was, however, c e r t a i n l y o n e o f t h e r e a l p a r t i e s i n interest. The a t t o r n e y s r e p r e s e n t i n g Kamp i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w e r e t h e same a t t o r n e y s r e p r e s e n t i n g J u d g e B l a i r i n t h i s C o u r t . A s such Kemp s h a l l be h e l d t o t h e same s t a n d a r d a s i f it had been a named p a r t y . I f Kamp f e l t a g g r i e v e d o v e r t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n , t h e p r o p e r remedy s h o u l d h a v e been t o move f o r a r e h e a r i n g i n t h i s C o u r t , a l l o w i n g t h i s Court t o promptly c o r r e c t i t s e r r o r , - t o have s a t i d l y not by and allowed Amsterdam Lumber and t h z d i s t r i c t court t o rely on the error. We turn now to Kamp's issue 1: Did Judge Dussault have jurisdiction to make his order dated June 24, 1974? We hold that he did. Kamp's argument, in summary, is: When this Court remanded this controversy to the district court on November 27, 1973, the only item before the district court was Amsterdam Lumber's motion filed October 11, 1973. Judge Dussault assumed jurisdiction in this case on April 25, 1974. No further action was taken until some fifty days later, on June 14, 1974, when Judge Dussault held a hearing on Amsterdam Lumber's motion. This time lapse of fifty days failed to comply with the time limits of Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P. Therefore, Kamp alleges, Judge Dussault lost jurisdiction to make his order dated June 24, 1974. While Kamp proposes an interesting argument, it is based upon the assumption that Judge Blair's judgment was valid, an assumption we have already considered and found wanting. Be- cause Judge Blair's judgment was void, there was no final judgment to appeal from, on which to base a motion to vacate or alter a judgment, nor from which Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., time limits could be computed. There remained the necessity for a judge with juris- diction to enter an appealable order, as was recognized by Judge Dussault in his findings of fact, conclusions of law and order entered June 24, 1974. Judge Dussault was complying with the directions of this Court in State ex rel. Amsterdam Lumber, Inc., supra. We affirm Judge Dussault's order which confirmed Judge Shanstrom's judgment and substituted findings of fact and conclusions of law. We hold, as did Judge Shanstrom, that the denial of Kamp's motion to set aside the default in cause number 19818, and Kamp's failure to appeal therefrom, constitutes a bar to the present action under the doctrine of res judicata. I n r e p l y t o Fnsterdam Lumber's d e f e n s e of r e s j u d i c a t a , Kamp r e l i e s on t h e d e c i s i o n i n Selway v . Burns, E s t a t e of B u r l e s , 150 Mont. 1, 8 , 429 P.2d 640, wherein t h e C o u r t s t a t e d : " * * * it h a s l o n g been t h e r u l e i n Montana t h a t a c o u r t of e q u i t y h a s i n h e r e n t power, i n d e p e n d e n t of s t a t u t e , t o g r a n t r e l i e f from judgments g a i n e d by f r a u d * * * t h e r e l i e f may be g r a n t e d e i t h e r on motion i n t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n o r i n a s e p a r a t e e q u i t y s u i t . Rule 6 0 ( b ) e x p r e s s l y p r e s e r v e d t h i s i n h e r e n t power 'This i n i t s l a s t s e n t e n c e which p r o v i d e s : r u l e d o e s n o t l i m i t t h e power of a c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n an independent a c t i o n t o r e l i e v e a p a r t y from a judgment, o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g * * *IllWhile Selway s t a t e s t h e r u l e t h a t a l i t i g a n t may o b t a i n r e l i e f from a judgment o b t a i n e d by f r a u d e i t h e r by a motion under Rule 6 0 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., o r by an independent a c t i o n , it d o e s n o t s t a t e t h a t a l i t i g a n t may p u r s u e b o t h r e m e d i e s . The law of r e s j u d i c a t a r e m a i n s unchanged from t h a t s t a t e d y e a r s ago i n Meyer v . Lemley, 86 Mont. 8 3 , 95, 282 P . 268: " I n t h e c a s e a t b a r t h e s t a t u t o r y remedy was p l a i n , speedy and a d e q u a t e . Under i t a p p e l l a n t c o u l d have o b t a i n e d complete r e l i e f . It could have had t h e d e c r e e , and a l l s u b s e q u e n t proceedi n g s t h e r e u n d e r , s e t a s i d e * * *. A p p e l l a n t invoked t h e a i d o f t h e s t a t u t e , b u t t h r o u g h i t s own f a u l t f a i l e d t o p u r s u e p r o p e r l y t h e remedy i t afforded * * * " ' I f t h e complaining p a r t y has r e s o r t e d t o an a d e q u a t e l e g a l remedy, and been d e n i e d r e l i e f , t h i s a d j u d i c a t i o n s h o u l d b a r any r e l i e f i n e q u i t y on grounds t h e n a v a i l a b l e which were o r might have been t h e r e u r g e d . ' The form of t h e l e g a l remedy i s i m m a t e r i a l , i f it be a d e q u a t e . ( 3 Freeman on Judgments, 5 t h e d . s e c . 1 1 9 4 . ) * * * " * * * A p p e l l a n t had an a d e q u a t e remedy, invoked i t , l o s t it t h r o u g h i t s own f a u l t . He who summons t h e p u b l i c f o r c e t o a i d him i n t h e a s s e r t i o n of h i s r i g h t s must f o l l o w t h e r u l e s p r e s c r i b e d . He c a n n o t be p e r m i t t e d , a f t e r h a v i n g s e l e c t e d a n a p p r o p r i a t e and a d e q u a t e remedy and having f a i l e d t h r o u g h h i s own f a u l t t o o b t a i n r e l i e f t h e r e b y , t o t h e n h a r a s s h i s b l a m e l e s s a d v e r s a r y by p u r s u i n g It i s t o the i n t e r e s t a n o t h e r and d i f f e r e n t remedy. o f s o c i e t y t h a t l i t i g a t i o n end; ' i n t e r e s t r e i p u b l i c a e u t sit f i n i s litium. ' " When Kamp f i l e d i t s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t i n c a u s e number 19818, p u r s u a n t t o Rules 5 5 ( c ) and 6 0 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., it had an a d e q u a t e remedy. Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) p e r m i t s a l i t i g a n t t o move f o r r e l i e f , and t h e c o u r t t o g r a n t s u c h r e l i e f , on t h e grounds of f r a u d . I n h i s sworn a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t Thomas J . Kamp enumerated t h e i d e n t i c a l f a c t s forming t h e b a s i s of t h e i n s t a n t f r a u d a c t i o n and a l l e g e d t h e f a i l u r e of Amsterdam Lumber t o i n f o r m t h e c o u r t of t h i s constituted alleged fraud. I n f a c t , Kamp e x p l i c i t l y a d m i t t e d i n one of i t s t r i a l b r i e f s t h a t f r a u d w a s o n e of t h e grounds advanced i n s u p p o r t of i t s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t i n c a u s e number 19818. Kamp had i t s day i n c o u r t i n c a u s e number 19818 and a s t o t h e i s s u e of whether t h e d e f a u l t judgment s h o u l d be s e t a s i d e , t h e p l e a d i n g s on f i l e i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e and answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s show t h a t t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n i s merely a r e h a s h of Kamp's former motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment i n c a u s e even though i t a t t e m p t s t o t u r n t h e c a s e i n t o a n number i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n based upon t h e t h e o r y of Selway. Kamp f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t d e s p i t e a l l t h e f o r e g o i n g , i t s h o u l d n o t be b a r r e d by t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s j u d i c a t a s i n c e Judge L e s s l e y e x c l u d e d much of t h e e v i d e n c e which Kamp s o u g h t t o o f f e r a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. I t a l l e g e s t h e r e s u l t was t h a t i t was u n a b l e t o p r e s e n t f r a u d a s an i s s u e . Under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) , M.R.Civ.P., fraud i s a proper i s s u e t o p r e s e n t on a motion t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment. If Kamp f e l t i t s e v i d e n c e was e r r o n e o u s l y r e j e c t e d by Judge L e s s l e y , its remedy a t t h a t t i m e was t o a p p e a l Judge L e s s l e y ' s o r d e r d e n y i n g i t s motion; n o t t o have f u r t h e r h a r a s s e d Amsterdam Lumber by i n s t i t u t i n g a new and s e p a r a t e a c t i o n . Mont. 361, 224 P.2d 1 4 4 . L i b i n v . H u f f i n e , 124 Kamp f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y p u r s u e t h e remedy o r i g i n a l l y c h o s e n , t h e r e f o r e it i s b a r r e d from c h o o s i n g and p u r s u i n g a new and s e p a r a t e remedy by t h e d o c t r i n e o f res j u d i c a t a . I n i t s i s s u e 4 , Kamp, i n s u p p o r t o f i t s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t J u d g e Shanstrom e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g h i s o r d e r nunc p r o t u n c , r e l i e s on t h e d e c i s i o n s i n S t a t e e x r e l . K r u l e t z v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 110 Mont. 36, 98 P.2d 883; and S t a t e e x r e l . C r a i g v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 1 5 3 Mont. 427, 458 P.2d 608, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s t h e power t o c o r r e c t a c l e r i c a l e r r o r , b u t n o t a j u d i c i a l e r r o r , by e n t r y o f a nunc p r o t u n c o r d e r . Kamp c o n t e n d s t h a t when J u d g e Shanstrom e x e c u t e d Kampls f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, he found i n f a v o r o f Kamp and c o u l d n o t t h e r e a f t e r c h a n g e t h a t judgment by e n t r y o f h i s o r d e r nunc pro tunc. W e need n o t d e c i d e w h e t h e r a c l e r i c a l e r r o r o r a j u d i c i a l e r r o r was made, f o r w h i c h e v e r was committed t h e r e s u l t i s t h e same: t h i s a c t i o n w i l l be judged on t h e m e r i t s . I f a clerical e r r o r was c o m m i t t e d , w e would a f f i r m J u d g e D u s s a u l t l s o r d e r conf i r m i n g J u d g e S h a n s t r o m ' s judgment f o r Amsterdam Lumber b a s e d upon t h e g r o u n d s o f res j u d i c a t a . I f a j u d i c i a l e r r o r was made, w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t judgment s h o u l d have been e n t e r e d f o r Kamp b a s e d upon t h e o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w f i l e d J u n e 29, 1973, w e would have t o r e v e r s e t h a t judgment, a g a i n on t h e g r o u n d s o f res j u d i c a t a . E i t h e r way, Amsterdam Lumber p r e v a i l s . Kampls i s s u e 5 , w h e t h e r t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a judgment i n f a v o r o f Kamp, h a s become i m m a t e r i a l . Res j u d i c a t a i s a q u e s t i o n of law, not of f a c t . Judgment f o r r e s p o n d e n t Amsterdam Lumber, I n c . i s a f f i r m e d . * --------.--------------------* Justice ,
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.
