State Ex Rel Bohrer v. District Cou
This text of State Ex Rel Bohrer v. District Cou (State Ex Rel Bohrer v. District Cou) 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. 13563
I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA OR F H F
STATE O MONTANA, on t h e r e l a t i o n F of S Y O R M. BOHRER, MILLER M T A EMU UU L FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n ; and HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n ,
Relators,
THE DISTRICT COURT O THE SECOND JUDICIAL F DISTRICT O T E STATE O MONTANA, I N AND F H F F R THE COUNTY O SILVER BOW; and THE HON. O F A N L OLSEN, Judge t h e r e o f , R OD
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
Counsel of Record:
For R e l a t o r s :
Poore, McKenzie, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, B u t t e , Montana Urban L. Roth argued, B u t t e , Montana
For Respondents:
G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Gary L. Graham argued, Missoula, Montana Henningsen, P u r c e l l and Genzberger, B u t t e , Montana James E. P u r c e l l argued, B u t t e , Montana C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana Schulz, David and Warren, D i l l o n , Montana Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg and Matteucci, Great F a l l s , Montana Raymond F. Koby Jr. argued, Great F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: October 27, 1976
Decided: N O V 1.7 1976 Filed: ii"\i , ,Yib I Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s a n o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein r e l a t o r s seek
an appropriate w r i t t o overturn t h e respondent c o u r t ' s order
denying t h e i r motion t o withdraw a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n a n
a c t i o n f i l e d i n respondent c o u r t e n t i t l e d : "Seymour M. Bohrer;
Miller Mutual F i r e I n s u r a n c e Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n ; and Home
I n s u r a n c e Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f s , v s . S t e v e C l a r k ,
d/b/a S t e v e C l a r k C o n s t r u c t i o n ; S h a e f e r Plumbing & Sheet Metal,
Inc.; L e v i t t C o n s t r u c t i o n Systems, I n c . , a c o r p o r a t i o n ; The
M a j e s t i c Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , and Morgan D r i v e Away, a c o r -
p o r a t i o n , Defendants." Counsel was h e a r d ex p a r t e and t h e matter
t a k e n under advisement. Thereafter an order f o r an adversary
h e a r i n g was i s s u e d . Such h e a r i n g was h e l d , b r i e f s i n o p p o s i t i o n
f i l e d , a l l c o u n s e l h e a r d i n o r a l argument, and t h e m a t t e r sub-
mitted f o r decision.
I t a p p e a r s t h a t Bohrer f i l e d t h e above mentioned a c t i o n
i n h i s own name f o r l o s s s u s t a i n e d i n t h e amount o f $61,639.67
a g a i n s t t h e defendants. On J u l y 23, 1975, The M a j e s t i c Company
moved t o compel Bohrer t o j o i n as n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s any i n s u r -
a n c e company who was p a r t i a l l y o r e n t i r e l y s u b r o g a t e d t o @ i s
loss. M i l l e r Mutual F i r e I n s u r a n c e Company and Home I n s u r a n c e
Company had p a i d $51,693 of t h i s l o s s , and p u r s u a n t t o t h e motion
a second amended c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d i n c l u d i n g t h e s e i n s u r e r s
as p l a i n t i f f s . Thereafter these p l a i n t i f f insurers, r e l a t o r s
h e r e , moved t o withdraw a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f , a t which t i m e t h e
c a s e had n o t been s e t f o r a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g nor j u r y t r i a l . On
September 23, 1976, t h e r e s p o n d e n t d i s t r i c t judge i s s u e d a n
o r d e r denying t h e motion t o withdraw. A f f i d a v i t s had been f i l e d
a l o n g w i t h t h i s motion and i n which t h e i n s u r e r s had r a t i f i e d t h e
a c t i o n of Bohrer and a g r e e d t o be bound by t h e outcome o f s u c h
litigation. The p a r t i e s t o t h i s o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g a l l a g r e e
t h a t t h e language o f S t a t e e x r e l . Nawd's T.V. and A p p l i a n c e ,
Inc. v. D i s t r i c t Court, Mont. , 543 P.2d 1336, 32 S t . Rep. 1 2 2 2 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , i s d e t e r m i n a t i v e t h a t a p a r t i a l l y s u b r o g a t e d
i n s u r e r c a n e l e c t t o be bound by r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , o r sub-
stitution. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e e l e c t i o n i s h i s a l o n e t o make and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s g i v e n no d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c i d i n g whether
compliance w i t h Rule 1 7 , M.R.Civ.P., w i l l be by j o i n d e r o r ratification.
The d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r g u e
t h a t r e l a t o r s should n o t p r e v a i l h e r e f o r two r e a s o n s :
(1) The motion t o withdraw came t o o l a t e s i n c e t h e
i n s u r e r s e l e c t e d t o become p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t , and t h e y a r e bound by t h a t e l e c t i o n .
( 2 ) R e t r o a c t i v e e f f e c t s h o u l d n o t be g i v e n t o t h e Nawd's
T.V. ruling. The c r u c i a l language o f Rule 1 7 , M.R.Civ.P. states:
" * * * No a c t i o n s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d on t h e ground t h a t i t i s n o t p r o s e c u t e d i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t u n t i l a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e h a s been a l l o w e d a f t e r o b j e c t i o n f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of commence- ment of t h e a c t i o n by, o r j o i n d e r o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f , t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t ; and s u c h r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , o r s u b s t i t u t i o n s h a l l have t h e s a m e e f f e c t a s i f t h e a c t i o n had been commenced i n t h e name o f the real party i n interest." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
A s c a n e a s i l y be s e e n , t h e p l a i n i m p o r t o f t h i s l a n g u a g e
g i v e s t h e real p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t t h e o p t i o n of binding himself by r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , - s u b s t i t u t i o n . or This option w a s
n o t g r a n t e d by t h e Nawd's T.V. d e c i s i o n b u t by Rule 1 7 , M.R. Civ.P., when i t was amended i n 1968. T h i s r u l e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e any l a n g u a g e s t a t i n g t h a t once a r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t h a s chosen one o f t h e t h r e e p o s s i b l e means o f b i n d i n g h i m s e l f t o t h e a c t i o n , he i s b a r r e d from chang-
i n g h i s mind and p r o c e e d i n g i n a n o t h e r manner. A s pointed o u t i n Nawd's T.V. t h i s e l e c t i o n belongs t o t h e real p a r t y i n
i n t e r e s t , and t h e o n l y a u t h o r i t y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s t o
make s u r e o n e of t h e t h r e e , r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , o r sub-
s t i t u t i o n , i s adhered t o a f t e r o b j e c t i o n h a s been made under
Rule 17.
T h i s o p t i o n a s t o which means t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t
w i s h e s t o proceed b e l o n g s s o l e l y t o him. W e hold t h a t o r d i n a r i l y
he i s e n t i t l e d t o change h i s mind and proceed under any o f t h e
t h r e e means, even though he h a s made a p r e v i o u s e l e c t i o n , a s
l o n g a s s u c h a c t i o n on h i s p a r t i s prompt and h a s no p r e j u d i c i a l
e f f e c t on any p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n .
I n t h i s c a s e t h e p a r t i a l l y s u b r o g a t e d i n s u r e r s had j o i n e d
a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t , b u t p r i o r
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State Ex Rel Bohrer v. District Cou, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bohrer-v-district-cou-mont-1976.