Mortensen Construction Co. v. Burl

Opinion

No. 85-296

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985

MORTENSEN CONSTRUCTION CO., a n d GLEN A. MORTENSEN, i t s P r e s i d e n t ,

P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -vs-

BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , In a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f C a s c a d e , The Honorable J o h n McCarvel, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

T h o m a s S p e n c e a r g u e d , BN R a i l r o a d C o . , Billings, Montana

F o r Respondent:

L a r r y J o h n s o n ; James G r a y & M c C a f f e r t y , G r e a t F a l l s , Blon t a n a

P a t r i c k S u l l i v a n argued; Winston & C a s h a t t , Spokane, Washington

Submitted: September 27, 1985 Decided: November 6 , 1 9 3 5

. _

L

Clerk

M r . J u s t i c e F r a n k B. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.

D e f e n d a n t B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , I n c . , a p p e a 1s t h e J a n u a r y 28, 1985, judgment in favor of plaintiff Mortensen Construction Company. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal a s untimely is granted.

On J a n u a r y 2 8 , 1985, judgment was e n t e r e d in favor of M o r t e n s e n C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. (Mortensen) and n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment was mailed to Burlington Northern, Inc. (BN). BN timely filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the v e r d i c t a n d m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l o n F e b r u a r y 8 , 1985. Prior t o f i l i n g these motions, BN r e q u e s t e d the court reporter to p r o v i d e a t r a n s c r i p t of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . Due t o a b a c k l o g o f work, and t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r 's hospi-talization, no p o r t i o n s of the transcript were provided t o BN u n t i l May 8, 1985.

N o r u l i n g w a s made o n t h e m o t i o n s , so on March 2 5 , 1 9 8 5 , both motions were deemed denied pursuant to Rule 59(d), M.R.Civ.P. No e n t r y of t h e deemed d e n i a l s w a s made i n t h e c o u r t r e c o r d , n o r w a s n o t i c e o f s u c h s e n t t o BN. The 30-day time limit on appeals commenced on March 25, 1985, and expired on April 24, 1985. Thereafter, BN c o u n s e l f i l e d a n affidavit o n May 9, 1985, informing t h e District Court he would amend the motions once he received the entire t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings.

On May 2 7 , 1 9 8 5 , M o r t e n s e n s e n t a l e t t e r t o BN d e m a n d i n g payment o f t h e judgment. On May 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 , BN f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r s t a y o f p r o c e e d i n g s t o e n f o r c e judgment. A h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court on June 3 , 1985, which g r a n t e d the stay of execution, yet asserted it no longer had j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c a s e . BN f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l o n June 3, 1985. Mortensen responded w i t h a motion to d i s m i s s a p p e a l and motion f o r award o f damages, f i l e d J u n e 18, 1985.

The issues we address are: 1) whether BN's appeal is timely; and 2) whether Mortensen s h o u l d b e awarded damages a n d c o s t o f t h i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , M. R.App.Civ. P.

BN argues that Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P. entitled it to r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e deemed d e n i a l . o f i t s m o t i o n s . Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P. p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t , t h a t a t i m e l y Rule 5 0 ( b ) o r R u l e 59 m o t i o n s u s p e n d s t h e r u n n i n g o f t i m e f o r a p p e a l u n t i l an o r d e r i s e n t e r e d upon t h e m o t i o n and t h e c l e r k h a s m a i l e d n o t i c e o f such e n t r y .

I n making t h i s a r g u m e n t , BN i g n o r e s t h e p a s t d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s C o u r t t h a t R u l e 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. invokes a mandatory time l i m i t . F i e l d s v. Summit E n g i n e e r i n g (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 653 P.2d 1204, 39 S t . R e p . 2057; S e l l v. Sell (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 630 P.2d 222, 38 S t . R e p . 956; L e i t h e i s e r v. Montana S t a t e P r i s o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 343, 505 P.2d 1203. The n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n of R u l e 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P. a p p l i e s t o o r d e r s upon m o t i o n s , n o t deemed d e n i a 1s. Rule 59(d), M.R.Civ.P., as amended, e f f e c t i v e October 9, 1984, c l e a r l y p r o v i d e s t h a t a p o s t - t r i a l motion i s deemed d e n i e d 45 d a y s a f t e r i t s f i l i n g if it h a s n o t been r u l e d upon. W e f i n d B N ' s reading o f t h e Rules t o be i n c o r r e c t , and d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a s u n t i m e l y .

M o r t e n s e n a s s e r t s i t i s e n t i t l e d t o damages and c o s t o f

t h i s a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t t o Rule 3 2 , M.App.R.Civ.P. W do n o t

e

agree. The test for granting damages under Rule 32, M.App.R.Civ.P. is whether there are substantial and reasonable grounds for appeal, and whether the appeal was taken merely f o r d e l a y purposes.

BN's appeal advances a reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e relationship between Rule 59 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. and Rule 5, P4.App.R.Civ.P. While t h e same a r g u m e n t h a s b e e n p r e v i o u s l y rejected by t h i s C o u r t , see L e i t h e i s e r , supra, R u l e 59 ( d ) , P4.R.Civ.P. h a s s i n c e b e e n amended, and R u l e 5 , M.App.R.Civ.P.

may be amended in the near future for its lack of clarity. We do not find BN's appeal to be frivolous, and deny Mortensen's motion for damages pursuant to Rule 32, M.App.R.Civ.P.

We concur:

hhief Justice '

1\f!P7A6L444& Justice