BIG SPRING v BLACKFEET TRIBE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13570 IN THE SUPREMr COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 WILLIAM F.BEO SPRING, S ' & and KATHLEEN R .BIG SPRING,, Plaintiffs and Respondents, THE BLACKFEET TRIBE OF THE BLACKFEET INDIAN RESERVATION, A Corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Philip E. Roy, Browning, Montana Graybill, Ostrem, Warner and Crotty, Great Falls, Montana Donald Ostrem argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Frisbee and Moore, Cut Bank, Montana John P. l.1oore argued, Cut Bank, Montana Submitted: ~ecided: Filed: 'JA I.! 1. i 1 5 9 . October 6, 1977 JAN 11 1370 M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court: The Blackfeet Tribe of t h e ~ I B c k f e e tIndian Reservation, appeals from a d e f a u l t judgment of $20,000 damages f o r l i b e l entered a g a i n s t t h e Tribe by t h e D i s t r i c t Court, G l a c i e r County. The b a s i s f o r t h e l i b e l a c t i o n was a l e t t e r dated March 18, 1974, a l l e g e d l y w r i t t e n by E a r l Old Person, Chairman of t h e Blackfeet T r i b e , t o William F . Big Spring, S r . and Kathleen R. Big Spring. The l e t t e r concerned t h e Big Springs, e n r o l l e d members of t h e Blackfeet T r i b e , and i t was s e n t t o t h e Big Springs a s w e l l a s t o o t h e r people o u t s i d e t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . O March 17, 1976, t h e Big Springs f i l e d a l i b e l a c t i o n n a g a i n s t t h e Blackfeet T r i b e . The same day, even though t h e T r i b e had n o t been served with the complaint and summons and had made no appearance, t h e a t t o r n e y f o r Big Springs mailed a request f o r admissions t o t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y , but d i d n o t mail a copy of t h e summons and complaint. On March 22, 1976, t h e s h e r i f f served E a r l Old Persons with a copy of t h e summons and complaint. O A p r i l 2, Big Springs' a t t o r n e y served t h e T r i b e ' s n a t t o r n e y with a supplemental request f o r admissions. The Tribe f a i l e d t o appear within 20 days of t h e d a t e of service. 22 days a f t e r s e r v i c e , on A p r i l 13, 1976, t h e Big s p r i n g s ' a t t o r n e y f i l e d t h e o r i g i n a l s h e r i f f ' s r e t u r n on t h e summons with 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 and then made w r i t t e n request f o r t h e c l e r k t o e n t e r the T r i b e ' s d e f a u l t . Default was entered t h e same day. Three days a f t e r e n t r y of d e f a u l t , on A p r i l 16, and without r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e of t h e d e f a u l t , t h e Tribe f i l e d a motion t o dismiss t h e complaint on t h e grounds t h a t t h e c o u r t lacked j u r i s - d i c t i o n over t h e s u b j e c t matter ( t h e l i b e l a c t i o n ) and personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e Tribe. The Tribe mailed a copy of i t s motion t o dismiss t o t h e Big Springs' a t t o r n e y . O A p r i l 20, with no n o t i c e t o t h e T r i b e , t h e Big Springs' n a t t o r n e y f i l e d a w r i t t e n motion t o s t r i k e t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o dismiss, a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e Tribe had no r i g h t t o f i l e such N o a motion o r t o appear a f t e r i t s d e f a u l t had been entered. a u t h o r i t y was c i t e d . On A p r i l 21, t h e t r i a l c o u r t granted t h i s e x - p a r t e motion and immediately proceeded t o h e a r evidence on t h e question of l i a b i l i t y and damages. and witnesses were sworn and t e s t i f i e d . Exhibits were introduced The c o u r t took t h e matter under advisement. O A p r i l 2 3 , t h e Tribe f i l e d a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e n d e f a u l t .and t o quash t h e summons and dismiss t h e complaint. The Tribe s e t out s e v e r a l grounds t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t including t h a t (1) s e r v i c e was not made on t h e proper person, (2) t h e t r i b a l chairman had no r e c o l l e c t i o n of ever being served, ( 3 ) copies of t h e complaint and summons could n o t be found, and ( 4 ) t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y had no way of determining t h e exact day of s e r v i c e because t h e o r i g i n a l summons had n o t been returned t o t h e c l e r k of c o u r t u n t i l t h e day t h e d e f a u l t was taken. The Tribe again contended t h e c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e s u b j e c t matter and over t h e Tribe. The T r i b e s t r e s s e d t h a t i t was appearing s p e c i a l l y and n o t g e n e r a l l y . Two hearings were held on t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t and dismiss t h e complaint. The f i r s t hearing was t h e r e s u l t of a n o t i c e s e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e Big Springs on A p r i l 29 s e t t i n g t h e hearing d a t e f o r May 5. This n o t i c e was d e f i c i e n t under Rules 6(d) and 6 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P., which r e q u i r e a n o t i c e of a t l e a s t e i g h t days i f s e r v i c e i s made by mail. Neither t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y nor any of defendants were p r e s e n t a t t h e hearing. (At a l a t e r hearing t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y sought t o j u s t i f y h i s absence a t t h e f i r s t hearing by s t a t i n g he was i n Chicago a t t h e time and had c a l l e d t h e c o u r t a f t e r l e a r n i n g of t h e hearing d a t e , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t had agreed t o a continuance. The c o u r t d i d not deny t h i s . ) The c o u r t then proceeded with i t s hearing and received evidence on t h e question of s e r v i c e of process. Nothing i n t h e record i n d i c a t e s the c o u r t r u l e d on t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t , o r t h a t a minute e n t r y o r o t h e r n o t i c e was s e n t t o the f r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y informing him of what proceedings had taken place on t h a t day. O June n 2, 1976, t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y s e n t n o t i c e by mail t o t h e Big s p r i n g s ' a t t o r n e y s e t t i n g a hearing f o r June 9 on t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t . This n o t i c e was a l s o d e f i c i e n t under Rules 6(d) and 6 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P., but a t t o r n e y s f o r both p a r t i e s appeared a t t h e hearing and t h e r e f o r e n o t i c e h e r e i s not a t i s s u e . O t h e d a t e of t h e hearing, t h e n a t t o r n e y f o r t h e Big Springs f i l e d a motion t o quash t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t on t h e grounds t h a t (1) t h e Tribe had f a i l e d t o appear a t t h e p r i o r h e a r i n g s , (2) t h e Tribe had no r i g h t t o make any appearances a t t h i s p o i n t , and ( 3 ) t h e n o t i c e was not accompanied by the motion t o s e t a s i d e o r by an affidavit. court. Both a t t o r n e y s presented t h e i r arguments t o t h e The D i s t r i c t Court judge s t a t e d t h a t normally he would s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t when a motion o r pleading was f i l e d "within a reasonable time" a f t e r t h e 20 day period, such a s t h i s c a s e , b u t concluded: "* * * b u t t h e problem h e r e , of course, i s t h a t i t [ t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t ] was s e t f o r hearing and you f a i l e d t o appear and argue t h e motion." The c o u r t then took t h e motion under advisement. On June 29, without r u l i n g d i r e c t l y t h e motion s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t entered i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law and awarded t h e Big Springs $20,000 i n damages a g a i n s t t h e Tribe. Judgment was entered J u l y 6 and on t h e same day t h e Big Springs' a t t o r n e y s e n t a copy of t h e judgment and n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment t o t h e Tribe. J u l y 12, t h e Tribe moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment. O n O J u l y 21, n i n a s h o r t order devoid of reasons, t h e t r i a l c o u r t denied t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment. The Tribe appeals from t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g s f a i l i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t and f a i l i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment. O t h e b a s i s of t h e t o t a l circumstances surrounding t h e n proceedings i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court we conclude t h e T r i b e was denied a meaningful opportunity t o appear and be heard. The D i s t r i c t Court proceedings reek of a d e n i a l of due process and t h e d e f a u l t judgment and d e f a u l t must be s e t a s i d e . Rule 5 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., s t a t e s t h a t proof of s e r v i c e " s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h i n 10 days a f t e r s e r v i c e . F a i l u r e t o make of proo-f/service does n o t a f f e c t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e service." The r u l e , a s s t a t e d , i s unconditional. Here, t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e Big Springs d i d n o t r e t u r n and f i l e t h e summons with proof of s e r v i c e u n t i l 22 days a f t e r s e r v i c e on E a r l Old Person. Although t h i s l a t e r e t u r n d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e s e r v i c e f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l purposes, i t d i d make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y t o determine t h e d a t e of s e r v i c e . Here t h e summons was returned and f i l e d simultaneously with a motion t o take t h e T r i b e ' s d e f a u l t . I t could w e l l be t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o r e t u r n t h e summons w i t h i n t h e time required by t h e r u l e could have contributed t o t h e T r i b e ' s f a i l u r e t o appear w i t h i n t h e 20 days. Lack of an opportunity t o a c q u i r e t h i s information, coupled with o t h e r circumstances, may be s u f f i c i e n t "good cause" t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t under Rule 5 5 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., which s t a t e s i n part: "For good cause shown t h e c o u r t may s e t a s i d e *.If an e n t r y of d e f a u l t ** Henceforth, i t s h a l l be t h e duty of a l l process s e r v e r s , be i t t h e s h e r i f f o r p r i v a t e persons, Rule 5 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P. t o s t r i c t l y comply with I t i s t h e duty of t h e process s e r v e r t o r e t u r n t h e summons t o t h e c l e r k of c o u r t w i t h i n 10 days a f t e r s e r v i c e , and t h i s duty s h a l l only be excused under circumstances which c o n s t i t u t e "good cause". "Good cause" s h a l l r e l a t e only t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y which t h e process s e r v e r has i n f i l i n g the papers with t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c l e r k of c o u r t . The Tribe f i n d s i t s e l f i n a p o s i t i o n of n o t knowing why t h e D i s t r i c t Court overruled i t s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t . Not only d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l t o g i v e reasons f o 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 , b u t no r u l i n g was d i r e c t e d t o t h e T r i b e ' s motion. The T r i b e ' s motion was only impliedly overruled by t h e judgment a g a i n s t t h e T r i b e . I n m a t t e r s of such importance t h e p a r t i e s a r e e n t i t l e d n o t only t o a d i r e c t r u l i n g from t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e motion, but they a r e a l s o e n t i t l e d t o know t h e reasons f o r t h e r u l i n g . I n i t s motion t h e T r i b e s e t out s u b s t a n t i a l grounds why t h e d e f a u l t should be s e t a s i d e , and s i n c e t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o d i s c u s s these grounds, we cannot uphold the r u l e t h a t a judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t comes t o us a s presumptively c o r r e c t . W adhere t o our r u l e t h a t t h i s e Court does n o t f a v o r d e f a u l t s , b u t r a t h e r , f a v o r s an a d j u d i c a t i o n on t h e m e r i t s whenever p o s s i b l e . 118 Mont. 312, 322, 165 P.2d 804. Inc., Lindsey v. Keenan, (1946), See a l s o : Schwab v. B u l l o c k ' s ( 9 t h C i r . 1974), 508 F.2d 353,355; 10 Wright & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & Procedure: C i v i l $2681, pp. 248-251. I t follows n a t u r a l l y t h a t i f t h e d e f a u l t must be s e t a s i d e s o must t h e judgment. However, t h e r e a r e independent reasons why t h e d e f a u l t judgment must be s e t a s i d e , even i f t h e d e f a u l t was allowed t o s t a n d . Once t h e T r i b e f i l e d i t s i n i t i a l motion t o d i s m i s s b e f o r e judgment was e n t e r e d , i t was e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e of a l l subsequent proceedings, b u t i t was denied t h i s n o t i c e . Rule 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , M.R.Civ.P., "* states i n part: * I f t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom judgment by d e f a u l t i s sought h a s appeared i n t h e a c t i o n , he ( o r , i f appearing by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ) s h a l l b e served w i t h w r i t t e n n o t i c e of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r judgment a t l e a s t t h r e e days p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g on such a p p l i c a t i o n . 3r *" Jc * S e c t i o n 93-8505, R.C.M. 1947, a l s o e n t i t l e s a p a r t y t o n o t i c e of subsequent proceedings a f t e r a n "appearance" by t h a t p a r t y . This section s t a t e s i n p a r t : A defendant appears i n an a c t i o n when he answers, f i l e s H-motion, o r g i v e s t h e p l a i n t i f f *.Ir w r i t t e n n o t i c e of h i s appearance (Emphasis added). " ** Two days a f t e r d e f a u l t was e n t e r e d , b u t b e f o r e d e f a u l t judgment was taken, t h e T r i b e f i l e d i t s motion t o d i s m i s s on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l grounds. A motion t o d i s m i s s on t h e b a s i s of l a c k of s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n may be r a i s e d a t any time. 1 2 ( h ) ( 3 ) , M.R.Civ.P.; Rule I"gm' d .W v . McCloskey & Co.,(Brd C i r . 1965), 342 F.2d 495, 497, c e r t . den. 382 U.S. 823, 86 S.Ct. 52, 15 L ed 2d 68; Rath Packing Co. v. Becker, ( 9 t h C i r . 1975), 530 F.2d 1295, 1303. Moreover, t h i s Court has long held a motion a t t a c k i n g t h e complaint, a s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , i s s u f f i c i e n t t o a c t a s an appearance. Donlan v. Thompson F a l l s Copper & Milling-Co., (1910), 42 Mont. 257, 112 P. 445. Even though t h e Tribe denominated i t s appearance a s a s p e c i a l one, i t was s t i l l an appearance under any circumstances. Under Rule 12, M.R.Civ.P., t h e r e i s no longer a d i s t i n c t i o n between g e n e r a l and s p e c i a l appearances. Under Rule 12(b) l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n may be a s s e r t e d e i t h e r i n t h e responsive pleading o r by motion; Rule 12(g) allows c o n s o l i d a t i o n of Rule 12(b) defenses; and Rule 12(h) (1) r e q u i r e s a p a r t y t o r a i s e t h e defense of l a c k of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n i n h i s i n i t i a l pleading The T r i b e complied with each of t h e s e r u l e s . Since t h e Tribe properly appeared, i t follows t h a t it was I improper f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o g r a n t t h e Big Springs' ex p a r t e motion t o s t r i k e t h e ~ r i b e ' smotion t o dismiss. Once t h e Tribe f i l e d i t s appearance t h e Big Springs were required t o g i v e n o t i c e t o t h e Tribe of any opposing motion. Rule 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides i n p a r t : "* * * Except a s o t h e r wise provided i n t h e s e w r i t t e n motion o t h e r than one r u l e s , every which may be heard ex p a r t e , and every w r i t t e n and s i m i l a r paper s h a l l be served upon notice each of t h e p a r t i e s . *** *** * * *" I t i s c l e a r t h e t r i a l c o u r t had no procedural a u t h o r i t y s t r i k e t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o dismiss. Once t h e T r i b e had made i t s appearance by f i l i n g i t s motion t o dismiss, i t was t h e duty of t h e court t o r e q u i r e n o t i c e t o t h e Tribe of any opposing motion. Moreover, t h e D i s t r i c t Court had a duty t o r u l e on t h e T r i b e ' s motion before proceeding t o judgment. Paramount ~ u b l j #Corp. v. Boucher, (1933), 93 Mont. 340, 347, 19 P. 2d 223. Even assuming t h e D i s t r i c t Court ruled a g a i n s t t h e T r i b e on i t s motion t o dismiss and t h e Tribe d i d n o t f u r t h e r plead within t h e time requirements, t h e Big Springs s t i l l had t h e duty t o give a t l e a s t a t h r e e day n o t i c e t o t h e Tribe before a hearing could be held on t h e Big Springs' a p p l i c a t i o n t o (2) take judgment. Rule 55(b)/, M.R.Civ.P. This, of course, was n o t done, and the Tribe had no opportunity t o p a r t i c i p a t e a t t h e hearing where t h e t r i a l judge heard evidence upon which t h e judgment was based. These f a i l u r e s t o give proper n o t i c e were f a t a l t o t h e judgment. Under t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e circumstances such a s e x i s t i n t h i s case, we can s e e no u s e f u l punpose i n s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e judgment only t o allow t h e p a r t i e s t o r e l i t i g a t e t h e question of whether t h e d e f a u l t should be s e t a s i d e . The e n t i r e proceedings were s o lacking such a s t o c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l of due process. The t r i a l c o u r t has n o t y e t ruled on t h e i s s u e s of j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e s u b j e c t matter and personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e T r i b e , and we r e f r a i n from deciding t h e s e i s s u e s . Similarly, t h e proper t e s t f o r damages i n a defamation a c t i o n i s n o t properly b e f o r e t h i s Court a t t h i s time. For i n s t r u c t i o n s regarding t h e c o r r e c t b a s i s of damages i n a defamation a c t i o n , however, we d i r e c t t h e D i s c r i c t Court's a t t e n t i o n t o New York Times Co. v. S u l l i v a n , (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 1 L ed 2d 686, 1 95 ALR2d 1412; Gertz v. Welch, (1974), 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L ed 2d 789, and r e l a t e d f e d e r a l c a s e s . W vacate t h e d e f a u l t judgment and t h e d e f a u l t and remand e with d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o r u l e on t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o d i s m i s s and proceed f u r t h e r under t h e p r o p e r r u l e s o f c i v i l procedure. . -. . Chief J u s t i c e

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.