Mortensen Construction Co. v. Burl

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: November 6, 1985
• Docket: 85-296
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 85-296

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

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