Pioneer Concrete v. Apex Construct

Montana Supreme Court

Pioneer Concrete v. Apex Construct

Montana Supreme Court·Decided December 24, 1980·No. 80-122·Published

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