1st Nat. Bank v. Security Bank

Montana Supreme Court

1st Nat. Bank v. Security Bank

DecidedJuly 12, 1982

Docket81-301

StatusPublished

This text of 1st Nat. Bank v. Security Bank (1st Nat. Bank v. Security Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1st Nat. Bank v. Security Bank, (Mo. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 81-301 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF P4ONTANA 1982

FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST OF WIBAUX, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

SECURITY BANK, N. A. AMBROSE H. HEIMER, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Ay2eal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable, M. James Sorte, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record: For Appellants :

Ralph L. Herriott, Billings, Montana Joseph F. Meglen, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Towe, Ball, Enright and Mackey, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: March 5, 1982 Decided: July 12, 1982

Filed: JUL 12 1 8 92 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This appeal arises from an action for recovery on

four promissory notes, t h r e e of w h i c h were s i g n e d a n d e x e -

c u t e d b y a p p e l l a n t , Ambrose Heimer, a n d t h e f o u r t h o f w h i c h

was s i g n e d a n d e x e c u t e d b y J o s e p h Heimer a n d g u a r a n t e e d b y

Ambrose Heimer . ?'he original complaint was filed June 9, 1978, by

First National Bank and Trust of Wibaux. The remaining

p l a i n t i f f s were added subsequently. After preliminary

p l e a d i n g s t r i a l was s e t f o r May 1 4 , 1 9 7 9 .

In response t o interrogatories of February 7, 1979,

Ambrose Heimer s t a t e d , " D e f e n d a n t Ambrose Heimer i n t e n d s t o

make Edward Towe a d e f e n d a n t by way o f c r o s s - c l a i m to assert

this. "

The o r i g i n a l t r i a l d a t e was v a c a t e d i n May 1 9 7 9 a n d

leave to f i l e a n amended c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t to stipulation

o f t h e p a r t i e s was g r a n t e d S e p t e m b e r 4 , 1979. Edward T o w e ' s

d e p o s i t i o n was t a k e n J u l y 2 , 1980. A tentative trial date

i n O c t o b e r was v a c a t e d b e c a u s e o f i l l n e s s o f c o u n s e l , a n d i n

A u g u s t 1 9 8 0 a new t r i a l d a t e was s e t f o r S e p t e m b e r 11. On

S e p t e m b e r 4 , Heimer f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r c o n t i n u a n c e s u p p o r t e d

by an affidavit of Ralph Herriott, appellants' counsel,

c l a i m i n g G r a n t I n v e s t m e n t Funds is a p a r t n e r s h i p and n o t a l l

partners had been joined in the l a w s u i t and a l s o clainning

n o t a l l o f t h e r e a l p a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t h a d b e e n made p a r t y

to the lawsuit. The m o t i o n was g r a n t e d , a n d a new t r i a l

d a t e s e t f o r September 30. T h a t t r i a l d a t e was v a c a t e d o n

S e p t e m b e r 1 0 and r e s e t f o r November 2 4 , a n d t h e p a r t i e s w e r e

o r d e r e d t o c o m p l e t e d i s c o v e r y b y November 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 .

On November 10, 1980, d e f e n d a n t s Ambrose and J o s e p h Heimer filed a n amended a n s w e r , which included a counter-

claim, cross-complaint a n d two t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t s . The

District Court granted respondents' motion to strike the

amended answer, cross-complaint and third party complaints

by o r d e r o f November 24. T r i a l was held o n November 24,

1980, and judgment entered i n favor of r e s p o n d e n t s o n March

3 , 1981.

Appellants set out three issues for review by this

Court: (1) W h e t h e r the District Court erred in f a i l i n g t o

a l l o w Ambrose Heimer t o j o i n Edward Towe a n d J a m e s U p d i k e a s

third party defendants; ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e named p l a i n t i f f s a r e

real parties in interest; and (3) whether a t t o r n e y f e e s of

18% of t h e amount d u e o n t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e s w e r e p r o p e r l y

assessed.

The s o u r c e o f t h e f i r s t i s s u e i s a p p e l l a n t s ' amended

answer which included a counterclaim, cross-complaint and

two third party complaints. The amended answer, dated

November 10, 1980, included t h i r d p a r t y c o ~ n p l a i n t sa g a i n s t

Edward Towe and l a t e r J a m e s U p d i k e .

In granting respondents' motion t o s t r i k e t h e appel-

lants' amended a n s w e r , including the two third party com-

plaints, the District Court determined t h a t t h e contentions

p r o p o s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t s c o n s t i t u t e d , " a t b e s t , " a permis-

s i v e p l e a d i n g " t h e s u b s t a n c e o f w h i c h would n o t b e e f f e c t e d

by n o t i n c l u d i n g i t i n t h e p r e s e n t t r i a l . "

Respondents argue t h a t s i n c e t h e amended a n s w e r w a s

f i l e d more t h a n t w e n t y d a y s a f t e r i t was s e r v e d a n d w i t h o u t

l e a v e of t h e c o u r t o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of the adverse party,

i t was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.

R e s p o n d e n t s a l s o a r g u e t h e a t t e m p t t o add a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s w a s d e f e c t i v e f o r t h e same r e a s o n s u n d e r R u l e 2 1 , M.R.Civ.P.

Even if t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a d moved t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y

t o amend t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d a d d a d d i t i o n a l parties, respon-

dents claim, t h e District Court properly exercised its d i s -

cretion in granting the motion to strike in that the

amendment was u n t i m e l y .

As previously noted, the appellants' amended a n s w e r

included a cross-complaint, c o u n t e r c o m p l a i n t , a n d two t h i r d

p a r t y complaints. S i n c e t h e s e v a r i o u s c o m p l a i n t s were n o t

severed from one a n o t h e r and were included a s p a r t of the

amended a n s w e r R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ . P . , governs.

A p p e l l a n t s f i l e d t h e i r amended a n s w e r o n November 1 0 ,

1980. Respondents subsequently filed a motion to strike

which is t h e o n l y method o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a n amended

pleading h a s been improperly f i l e d . Westlake v. District

C o u r t ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 1 1 8 Mont. 414, 1 6 7 P.2d 588; Paramount P u b l i x

C o r p . v . B o u c h e r ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 9 3 Mont. 3 4 8 , 1 9 P.2d 2 2 3 .

After a responsive pleading is s e r v e d o r twenty d a y s

a f t e r a n o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g is s e r v e d , a p a r t y may amend h i s

p l e a d i n g o n l y by l e a v e o f c o u r t o r by w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f t h e

adverse party. R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.

Appellants here d i d not have w r i t t e n consent of re-

s p o n d e n t s a n d f i l e d t h e i r amendment w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t .

Therefore, the District Court did not err in granting the

m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e amended a n s w e r .

The second issue to be considered is whether the

named plaintiffs, F i r s t National Bank and Trust of Wibaux

(hereinafter First National), Richey National Bank, Towe

F o u n d a t i o n and G r a n t Investment Fund, are real parties in

t h i s action. The District Court's findings of fact will not be

disturbed by this Court if they are supported by the

evidence. W a s h i n g t o n W a t e r a n d Power v . Morgan E l e c t r i c Co.

( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 2 Mont. 1 2 6 , 448 P.2d 6

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI