SEARIGHT v CIMINO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA MURLAND W . SEARIGHT and V I R G I N I A SEARIGHT, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vsMICHAEL C I M I N O , =. D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . APPEAL FROK: . , - ; ~ i s t r i c t o u r t of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ; : C I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of F l a t h e a d , T h e H o n o r a b l e L e i f E r i c k s o n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . ' COUNSEL O F RECORD: L-' 62 For Appellant: M u r l a n d W. S e a r i g h t , ~ o l u m b i aF a l l s , Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : J a m e s C . B a r t l e t t ; H a s h , 0 ' ~ r i e n& B a r t l e t t , K a l i s p e l l , Montana S u b m i t t e d on ~ r i e f s : J u n e 8 , 1 9 8 9 Decided: Filed: - - I - / Clerk July 19, 1989 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . The S e a r i g h t s a p p e a l from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d County, d e n y i n g their motion to vacate judgment and Cimino. We against t h e defendant, M r . Court's denial of the motion, and imposing sanctions affirm the D i s t r i c t further assess damages a g a i n s t t h e a p p e l l a n t s p u r s u a n t t o Rule 3 2 , M. R.App. P . , the filing of an appeal without for substantial o r reasonable grounds. The S e a r i g h t s p r e s e n t s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r o u r r e v i e w b u t we f i n d it n e c e s s a r y o n l y t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly denied a p p e l l a n t s ' judgment and impose s a n c t i o n s . motion t o v a c a t e Because we answer t h i s q u e s - t i o n a f f i r m a t i v e l y , we w i l l n o t d i s c u s s t h e remaining i s s u e s r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t s . This case has a lengthy history. ed a cause o f a c t i o n a g a i n s t M r . The S e a r i g h t s i n i t i a t - Cimino i n 1981, s e e k i n g t o Cimino e n f o r c e t h e terms o f a c o n t r a c t f o r deed r e q u i r i n g M r . to pay half Searights' the land. cost of On May 1 4 , favor of the Searights, Searight v. Mr. Cimino Cimino an constructed on the 1 9 8 5 , judgment was e n t e r e d i n and on a p p e a l t h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d . (1986), then airstrip sought 718 to P.2d 652, enforce 43 S t . R e p . the terms of 810. the c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d g r a n t i n g him t h e r i g h t t o u s e t h e a i r s t r i p . In July of 1986, h e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o c a u s e a p p e l l a n t s t o e x e c u t e a n a i r p o r t e a s e m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7 0 , M.R.Civ.P., which p r o v i d e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r 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 conveya n c e o f l a n d o r t o d e l i v e r d e e d s o r o t h e r documents o r t o p e r f o r m a n y 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 c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e a c t t o be done a t t h e c o s t o f the disobedient party by some other person 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 y . The S e a r i g h t s r e s i s t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e p r e v i o u s judgment e n t e r e d d i d n o t c o n t a i n any r e f e r e n c e t o a n e a s e m e n t which c o u l d b e e n f o r c e d by i n v o k i n g R u l e 7 0 , M. R.Civ. P . The S e a r i g h t s acknowledged d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o use t h e a i r s t r i p a s set f o r t h i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed, b u t a r g u e d t h a t t h e g r a n t i n g o f an e a s e m e n t was n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d e i t h e r by t h e c o n t r a c t o r by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment s o t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s motion should be dismissed. a l s o requested sanctions against M r . The S e a r i g h t s Cimino u n d e r Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o c a u s e the execution easement of needed l a t e r hearing the easement, and ruled that the Searights' motion for written Following a t o b e p r e p a r e d and r e c o r d e d . on a sanctions, the D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t a n e a s e m e n t had been p r e p a r e d and r e c o r d e d by t h e S e a r i g h t s ' a t t o r n e y . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e m o t i o n f o r s a n c t i o n s " a p p e a r s t o be h a r a s s m e n t on Mr. Searight's part." The c o u r t d e n i e d s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t M r . Cimino, and on i t s own m o t i o n , imposed s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e S e a r i g h t s o f $100. The S e a r i g h t s t h e n f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend t h e judgment, a r g u i n g t h a t R u l e 7 0 , M.R.Civ.P., was i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o e n f o r c e a judgment g r a n t i n g a n e a s e m e n t which n e v e r e x i s t ed. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n , reasoning t h a t : The t h r u s t o f P l a i n t i f f s ' argument i s t o r e l i t i g a t e t h e i s s u e o f easement. Since p l a i n t i f f s h a v e a l r e a d y s i g n e d and r e c o r d e d t h e e a s e m e n t t h e p o i n t i s moot. On a p p e a l , t h i s C o u r t r e f u s e d t o d i s t u r b t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s i n p u t t i n g t h e e a s e m e n t on r e c o r d . Searight v. Cimino (Mont. 1988), 748 P.2d 948, 45 St.Rep. 46. This c o n c l u s i o n was r e a c h e d b a s e d upon t h e a b s e n c e o f a r e c o r d o f t h e h e a r i n g on M r . C i m i n o ' s m o t i o n t o r e q u i r e e x e c u t i o n o f a n easement, and t h e a b s e n c e o f p r o o f o f w h e t h e r a n o r d e r was i s s u e d o r whether the parties were out. also This Court against the Searights, affirmed s i m p l y t o l d t o work i t the levying of sanctions b u t r e f u s e d t o award damages f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l u n d e r R u l e 32, M.R.App.P. for a 748 P.2d a t 952. On March 1 0 , 1989, a f t e r a p p o i n t i n g h i m s e l f a s c o u n s e l , Mr. Searight f i l e d a motion t o v a c a t e s a n c t i o n s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. the court, M.R.Civ.P., pursuant to judgment a n d impose The m o t i o n r e q u e s t e d t h a t i t s a u t h o r i t y under Rule and R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P., 12 ( h ) ( 3 ) , vacate a l l orders, d e c r e e s , and judgments e n t e r e d i n t h e a c t i o n a r i s i n g from M r . Cimino's motion to easement. S e a r i g h t contended Mr. cause a p p e l l a n t s t o execute an that the airport D i s t r i c t Court l o s t 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 o f t h e c a s e a f t e r e n t r y and s a t i s f a c t i o n of had no power to i t s f i n a l judgment order the i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n and granting of an easement. Mr. S e a r i g h t a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t s a n c t i o n s b e imposed a g a i n s t M r . Cimino p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 11, M.R.Civ.P. summarily d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t I t i s from t h i s d e n i a l t h a t t h e Searights appeal. I Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y deny a p p e l l a n t s ' m o t i o n t o v a c a t e judgment and impose s a n c t i o n s ? A p p e l l a n t s 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 was w i t h o u t 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 t o h e a r and determine t h e easement i s s u e b e c a u s e f i n a l judgment had been r e n d e r e d i n t h e p r i o r d e c i s i o n a n d t h a t judgment i n c l u d e d no r e f e r e n c e t o a n easement M.R.Civ.P. which could have been enforced under Rule 70, A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t a l l o r d e r s and judgments r e n d e r e d a s t o t h e e a s e m e n t i s s u e must be v a c a t e d , c i t i n g Crawford v . Pierse ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 56 Mont. 371, 375-76, 185 P. 315, 317-18: I t i s e l e m e n t a r y t h a t when t h e j u d g m e n t - r o l l upon i t s f a c e shows t h a t t h e c o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e n d e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r judgment, i t s p r o I t c a n n o t be nouncement i s i n f a c t no judgment. All enforced. No r i g h t c a n b e d e r i v e d from i t . p r o c e e d i n g s founded upon i t a r e i n v a l i d and i n e f An a f f i r m a n c e of f e c t i v e f o r any purpose. s u c h a judgment on a p p e a l c a n n o t make it v a l i d . (citations omitted). . . . In response, Mr. Cimino argues that appellants are m e r e l y a t t e m p t i n g t o r e l i t i g a t e t h e e a s e m e n t i s s u e , and t h a t because they have jurisdictional already challenge, had the opportunity the doctrine of res to raise judicata p l i e s t o preclude further l i t i g a t i o n of t h i s matter, a ap- citing Wellman v . Wellman ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 198 Mont. 42, 643 P.2d 573: Once t h e r e h a s b e e n f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t an i s s u e f o r j u d i c i a l decision- i n a given proceeding, including those issues t h a t pertain - - c o u r t ' s to a jurisdiction, the determination of t h e court i n t h a t p r o c e e d i n g must b e a c c o r d e d f i n a l i t y a s t o a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d o r which f a i r l v c o u l d have been r a i s e d , e l s e judgments m i g h t b g a t t a c k e d p i e c e m e a l and w i t h o u t e n d . ( ~ m ~ h a ssupplied) is . 643 P.2d Trading a t 575, c i t i n g Royal Coachman C o l o r Guard v . Marine (Me. 1 9 7 9 ) , 398 A.2d 382, 384. Contrary to appellants' contentions d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e we c o n c l u d e t h a t that it c o n t r o l s . Wellman is I n Wellman, a p p e l l a n t s a t t e m p t e d t o a t t a c k a judgment r e n d e r e d t e n y e a r s prior to exceeded sought in the appeal, contending its jurisdiction the pleadings. d i s m i s s a l , t h i s Court s a i d : that the District by g r a n t i n g more r e l i e f In affirming the lower Court t h a n was court's P l a i n t i f f s had a f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o l i t i g a t e t h e v o i d n e s s i s s u e i n 1971 when t h e y f i r s t moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. They f a i l e d t o d o s o . The d o c t r i n e o f res j u d i c a t a i s founded upon t h e g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d p u b l i c p o l i c y t h a t t h e r e must be some end t o l i t i g a t i o n . The end f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s c a s e o c c u r r e d more t h a n t e n y e a r s a g o when t h e y f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e i r f i r s t m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , a p p e l l a n t s had t h e same o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e t h e v o i d n e s s i s s u e when M r . Cimino f i r s t f i l e d h i s m o t i o n t o c a u s e e x e c u t i o n o f an a i r p o r t e a s e m e n t . They d i d i n f a c t o b j e c t t o t h e District Court's a b i l i t y t o enforce an e a s e m e n t u n d e r R u l e 70, M.R.Civ.P., o r amend t h e judgment issue. i n t h e i r motion t o a l t e r following d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e easement They f u r t h e r r a i s e d t h e subject matter jurisdiction s p e c i f i c i s s u e of l a c k of i n t h e i r P e t i t i o n f o r Rehearing a f t e r t h i s Court's opinion i n the matter. Because t h e sub- stance District of appellants' challenge to the Court's a c t i o n s h a s r e m a i n e d t h e same, it i s a p p a r e n t t h e y a r e m e r e l y attempting to relitigate issues which have already been d e c i d e d by i n v o k i n g d i f f e r e n t l a b e l s by which t o c o n t e s t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , one o f which i s 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 . W e w i l l not allow appellants' characterization of t h e i r claim t o h i n d e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f res j u d i c a t a , and t h e prevention of protracted l i t i g a t i o n . Furthermore, t h e District C o u r t ' s handling of t h e easement i s s u e was c o m p e l l e d by t h e a c t i o n s o f the appellants While i t i s n o t c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d w h e t h e r themselves. t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d an easement be g r a n t e d o r t o l d t h e parties indicate to "work that it out," appellants the were District Court's uncooperative and C i m i n o ' s a t t o r n e y was l e f t w i t h t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s : findings that Mr. (a) to do nothing and have this matter continue indefinitely without resolution; (b) to breach the Code of Professional Responsibility and communicate directly with Mr. Searight; or (c) to seek relief through the Court. The District Court found that Mr. Cimino's attorney chose the only alternative that was reasonably available to him, namely, to file a motion asking the court to compel an easement be drawn and recorded. Even if the relief sought by Mr. Cimino was beyond the scope of the original pleadings in the first proceeding, we hold that a jurisdictional challenge to the court's actions will nevertheless be barred by the doctrine of res judicata under this Court's holding in Wellman. We affirm the District Court's order denying appellants' motion to vacate and impose sanctions. Because we conclude that this appeal is taken without substantial or reasonable grounds and that appellants are merely attempting to relitigate the easement issue, we impose damages in the amount of $500 pursuant to Rule 32, M.R.App.P. Affirmed.

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.