AGAMERICA v MEYERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 96-606 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1997 AGAMERICA, FCB, successor in interest to the Farm Credit Bank of Spokane, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES C. MEYERS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting through the Farmers Home Administration, United States Department of Agriculture; DANNY HANSARD; FREDA HANSARD, f/k/a FREDA MEYERS; and NORTHWEST FARM CREDIT SERVICES, ACA., Defendants APPEAL FROM: and Appellants. District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, In and for the County of Hill, The Honorable John Warner, Judge Presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: James For C. Meyers, Pro Se, Helena, Montana Baucus, Taleff Respondent: John P. Paul, Alexander, Great Falls. Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: & Paul, January February 16, 1997 25, 1997 Chief Justice A. Pursuant to Section Internal 1988 J. Operating precedent and shall with the West Publishing Clerk James sale Turnage of The this real which June 1996, 5, Court. Court be cited as document result to the an order of the Judicial United the District the that District District States of Sheriff notice Court District of may be decree Court, and Court, foreclosure of Great that the and Hill and other ordered 2 Two months decree, Act, James of later, certified pursuant to the 25, enter an order 23, to County. procedural Hill Title On August Court the Falls, on mortgages an exemplified, Recognition District Great against FCB, Montana. Court of and invalid; AgAmerica, judgment the was County, Money-Judgments brief invalid. District court's his judgment and decree with in States is Hill determined from the 1996, in to forth Sale of MCA, and moved directed met, its appeals sets 11, favor federal 9, part been of Twelfth United in Foreign having the a judgment filed the not as a public the that located Uniform sale the and others, property of filing se, by Meyers June Order issued pro claims: by on Court's copy Supreme and by a report issued two Montana, AgAmerica Montana shall the We affirm. issued C. Meyers of decision by its appearing issues foreclosure Montana, this Court County. into In 3 (c), property nine District Paragraph Opinion Company. consolidated Falls, I, Rules, C. Meyers, Hill the be published of real Court, delivered Chapter requirements County Sheriff of 1996, had to notice for court sale to sell filed 1996. 28, The 1996, required property the Rule 7(b), sale aside to because satisfy the sale the federal the violation documents upon deficiency and attorney sale issued stipulate which by the areas federal is fees District are Court of those is where federal notice procedure, 1996. an order court is and that the it allows the it prevail," it invalid statutes, because and and lower the state should as 10, for invalid, statutes bond motion judgment invalid 20, motions. He claims on proper instruct stay and in error. September Court court based on on October this federal pending meritless We denied of it "a moved on August property the sale a supersedeas an emergency that in furnish was held appeal. of motion and Meyers this is of that property and for order sale to claims it the denied pending Meyers of the M.R.App.P., weeks, the stay failure of following proceedings to Meyers' The appeal Court upon by appeal." of moved District based setting a notice He then appeal. to the judgment. Meyers In and order "fails it allows of to failed deficiency judgment. AgAmerica Meyers' been appeal held, did proceedings has citing 276 (1996), Meyers responds at become Turner Mont. not by post the 55, raising moot v. 915 the because Mountain P.2d the AgAmerica bond Court pending 3 and argument foreclosure Engineering 799. a supersedeas District threshold obtain appeal. that sale has and Const. Inc. points that a stay out of the The procedure in a civil for action is obtaining set forth a stay at of Rule judgment 7(b), pending appeal M.R.App.P.: Upon service of notice of appeal, if the appellant desires a stay of execution, the appellant must, unless the requirement is waived by the opposing party, present to the district court and secure its approval of a supersedeas bond which shall have two sureties or a corporate surety as may be authorized by law. Meyers the did not record to the Hence, execution post a supersedeas indicate District of that Court bond, AgAmerica did not nor is there waived grant that his motion anything requirement. for stay judgment. Generally speaking, loss of property through foreclosure is involuntary and will not give rise to a waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment. For example, if the property has been foreclosed upon but not yet sold, it may still be possible for this Court to fashion a remedy. However, the underlying question we must confront in determining whether an appeal is moot is not whether the sale was involuntary, but, rather, whether or not this Court is in a position to grant effective relief. . . As this Court recognized in Martin Dev. Co., when there is no effective relief this Court can fashion, the appeal is moot. Appellants allowed foreclosure sale to proceed, did not stay the proceedings, and did not post a supersedeas bond. As has been recognized, there is a danger of dismissal for mootness and, thus, a special need for seeking a stay when the sale of property is ordered and is not enjoined. A party who is confronted with a judgment ordering a foreclosure sale and who allows the foreclosure sale to proceed runs the risk that his appeal will thereby be rendered moot. . . . involuntary, is not barred to the extent relief. Turner, 915 P.2d [Wlhen compliance [with a judgment] is as in most foreclosure actions, the appeal or waived, but may, nevertheless, be moot that this Court cannot grant any effective at 804-05 (citations 4 omitted). in of In this conclude not reach this case, because the foreclosure appeal the issues P$&.y~.& Juskices is moot. raised sale Because of that by Meyers. This has been held, conclusion, appeal is we we do dismissed.
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.
