Pioneer Concrete v. Apex Construct
This text of Pioneer Concrete v. Apex Construct (Pioneer Concrete v. Apex Construct) 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.
Opinion
No. 80-122
I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA
PIONEER CONCRETE & FUEL, INC., a corporation,
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
APEX CONSTRUCTION, I N C . , a c o r p o r a t i o n ; and UNITED P A C I F I C INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation,
Defendants, Third-Party P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t ,
DARRELL B I R D S B I L L , d/b/a B I R D S B I L L CEMENT CONTRACTOR,
Third-Party Defendant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of S i l v e r B o w , H o n o r a b l e A r n o l d O l s e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l of R e c o r d :
For Appellants:
Gough, Shanahan, Johnson a n d W a t e r m a n , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a
F o r Respondent:
Corette, S m i t h , D e a n , P o h l m a n and A l l e n , B u t t e , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : October 9, 1980
Filed: Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court.
U n i t e d P a c i f i c I n s u r a n c e Company a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r
d i r e c t i n g t h e e n t r y of judgment i n f a v o r of P i o n e e r C o n c r e t e &
Fuel, Inc. The S i l v e r Bow County D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r l e f t a
third-party c o m p l a i n t i n t h e same a c t i o n p e n d i n g . W find the e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r n o n a p p e a l a b l e w i t h i n R u l e 1, M.R.App. Civ.P., and R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., and d i s m i s s t h i s a p p e a l
without prejudice. Plaintiff-respondent Pioneer Concrete & Fuel Inc., ( P i o n e e r ) b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t Apex C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c .
(Apex) and United P a c i f i c I n s u r a n c e Co. (United p a c i f i c ) to
collect an account. Apex and U n i t e d P a c i f i c i n t u r n f i l e d a third-party c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t Darrell B i r d s b i l l . Third-party
p l a i n t i f f s o b t a i n e d a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t B i r d s b i l l o n
A u g u s t 27, 1 9 7 9 . A t r i a l was h e l d on t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t o n
O c t o b e r 30, 1 9 7 9 . P r i o r t o a n y d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h e o r i g i n a l
c o m p l a i n t by t h e S i l v e r Bow County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , B i r d s b i l l
moved t o h a v e t h e d e f a u l t judgment s e t a s i d e . On December 28, 1 9 7 9 , a h e a r i n g was h e l d o n B i r d s b i l l ' s m o t i o n and t h e D i s t r i c t
Court took t h e m a t t e r under advisement. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t
e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and j u d g m e n t i n t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t on J a n u a r y 8 , 1 9 8 0 . The c o u r t f o u n d
d e f e n d a n t Apex l i a b l e on i t s a c c o u n t w i t h P i o n e e r and f o u n d t h a t
U n i t e d P a c i f i c was l i a b l e f o r a n y i n d e b t e d n e s s o f Apex u n d e r sub- c o n t r a c t b o n d s i s s u e d t o Apex. On J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t which had p r e v i o u s l y been e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t D a r r e l l Birdsbill. R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides: " J u d g m e n t upon m u l t i p l e claims o r i n v o l v i n g m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s . When m u l t i p l ~ c l a i m sf o r r e l i e f o r m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s are i n v o l v e d i n an a c t i o n , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment as t o o n e or more b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l o f t h e claims or p a r t i e s o n l y upon a n e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e is no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y and upon a n e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y of judgment. I n t h e a b s e n c e of s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n and d i r e c t i o n , a n y o r d e r o r o t h e r f o r m o f d e c i s i o n , however d e s i g n a t e d , w h i c h a d j u d i c a t e s l e s s t h a n a l l t h e claims o r t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of l e s s t h a n a l l t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l n o t t e r m i n a t e t h e a c t i o n as t o a n y o f t h e c l a i m s or p a r t i e s , and t h e o r d e r or o t h e r f o r m o f d e c i s i o n is s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n a t a n y time b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l t h e claims and t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l the parties."
Rule 14, M.R.Civ.P.,expressly p r o v i d e s t h a t a n e n t r y of j u d g m e n t upon e i t h e r t h e o r i g i n a l claim or t h e t h i r d - p a r t y claim m u s t comply w i t h R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.
I n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t make a n " e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e is no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y . " C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e o r d e r w a s i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n n a t u r e and n o t
a p p e a l a b l e u n d e r R u l e 1, M.R.App.Civ.P. S e e Roy v. N e i b a u e r
( 1980)1 Mon t . , 610 P.2d 1 1 8 5 , 37 S t . R e p . 8 9 7 , and cases cited therein.
P r o f e s s o r Moore s u m m a r i z e s t h e i s s u e a s f o l l o w s : " I f a t h i r d - p a r t y claim becomes p a r t o f t h e a c t i o n , the action then involves multiple c l a i m s , as w e l l as m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s , e v e n t h o u g h i t d i d n o t p r i o r t o t h e i m p l e a d e r ; and a n a d j u - d i c a t i o n o f o n e or more b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l of t h e claims, o r of t h e i n t e r e s t of o n e o r more b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l of t h e p a r t i e s , i s i n t e r l o c u - t o r y where t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t does not e x e c u t e i t s c e r t i f i c a t e . W h e t h e r t o e x e c u t e a cer- t i £ i c a t e f o l l o w i n g a n a d j u d i c a t i o n as t o o n e or more b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l of t h e claims o r p a r t i e s rests i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t court.
" I n b r i e f , t h e n , once a t h i r d - p a r t y h a s been i m p l e a d e d t h e a c t i o n i n v o l v e s m u l t i p l e claims a n d m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s ; a t h i r d - p a r t y claim is o n e o f t h e c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f m e n t i o n e d i n 5 4 ( b ) ; and a n a d j u d i c a t i o n as t o o n e o r more b u t fewer t h a n a l l o f t h e m u l t i p l e claims or p a r t i e s is i n t e r l o c u t o r y , a b s e n t a c e r t i f i c a t e , and h a s f i n a l i t y when t h e c e r t i f i c a t e is e x e c u t e d ." 6 M o o r e f s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e I[ 54.36. A l t h o u g h a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e Montana
R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e and t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l
P r o c e d u r e , t h e a p p r o a c h t o be t a k e n is t h e same. Rule 5 4 ( b ) , Fed .R.Civ. P . , e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e s t h a t it a p p l i e s to t h i r d p a r t y c l a i m s and t h e r e is no r e f e r e n c e i n R u l e 1 4 , Fed.R.Civ.P., t o Rule
54(b). On t h e o t h e r h a n d , Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., merely provides
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pioneer Concrete v. Apex Construct, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pioneer-concrete-v-apex-construct-mont-1980.