November 10 2015
DA 15-0445
Case Number: DA 15-0445
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2015 MT 315
TODD A. KISER,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
NOEL D. KISER and MARIE A. MCDOWELL,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 15-517(A)
Honorable Ted O. Lympus, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Evan F. Danno, Danno Law Firm, P.C.; Kalispell, Montana
For Appellees:
Todd A. Kiser, self-represented; Kila, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 21, 2015
Decided: November 10, 2015
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Noel D. Kiser and Marie A. McDowell (Noel and Marie) appeal from the Eleventh
Judicial District Court’s dismissal of their appeal from the judgment entered against them
and in favor of Todd A. Kiser (Todd) in Flathead County Small Claims Court. The
District Court dismissed their appeal for failure to file their opening brief on time. We
reverse and remand for further proceedings, and address the following issue:
¶2 Did the District Court err by dismissing the appeal from Small Claims Court?
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¶3 Todd initiated this action by filing a form complaint against Noel and Marie in the
Small Claims Division of Flathead County Justice Court on April 17, 2015. The form
was entitled “COMPLAINT AND ORDER IN THE SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION,
FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA JUSTICE COURT.” Todd alleged that Noel and
Marie owed him $3,445.85 arising out of an asserted agreement among them regarding
their father’s nursing care and cremation costs. The order portion of the form, issued
over the name of Justice of the Peace Mark R. Sullivan by the Clerk of the Small Claims
Division, set a hearing for the complaint on May 22, 2015, and advised Noel and Marie
that they must bring “all books, papers, and witnesses needed to establish any defense to
said claim.” The Order further advised them that “within 10 days of service upon you of
this Complaint and Order, you may remove this action from the small claims court to
Justice Court, and that failure to remove shall constiture [sic] a waiver of your rights to
trial by jury and to representation by counsel.” They were served with the complaint and
summons on April 20, 2015.
2
¶4 Noel and Marie did not remove the matter from Small Claims Court to Justice
Court, and all three of the named parties personally appeared at the hearing as scheduled
on May 22, 2015. On June 10, 2015, Justice Sullivan entered Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Judgment in favor of Todd and against Noel and Marie. On
June 17, 2015, Noel and Marie, then represented by counsel, filed a notice of appeal of
the judgment to the Flathead County District Court.
¶5 On June 25, 2015, the Clerk of the District Court mailed a form letter to Todd and
counsel for Noel and Marie, which stated:
Pursuant to Rule 10(c) of the Uniform Municipal Court Rules of Appeal to
the District Court this office is hereby notifying the parties of having
received the above-entitled action on appeal from the limited jurisdiction
court of record on June 23, 2015. The Honorable Ted O. Lympus has
jurisdiction.
An appeal from a justice court of record to the district court is limited to a
review of the record and questions of law. § 3-10-115(1), MCA, and
pursuant to § 3-10-115(4), MCA, the rules governing the appeal are as
established in the Montana Uniform Municipal Court Rules of Appeal to
District Court, codified in Title 25, Chapter 30. A copy of Rules 12, 13 and
14 [setting out the deadlines for this type of appeal] are included with this
notification.
No separate briefing schedule will be issued by the court. Please refer to
the deadlines set forth in Rule 14 (attached). . . .
¶6 Although indicating that “the above-entitled action” had been received, this letter
did not state the record had been transferred to the District Court, and no other notice was
given by the Small Claims Court. Noel and Marie filed their brief in District Court on
July 16, 2015. On July 22, 2015, the District Court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that
the brief had been untimely filed because, pursuant to the 15-day deadline under Rule 14
3
of the Montana Uniform Municipal Court Rules of Appeal to District Court (hereinafter
“Municipal Court Appellate Rules”), codified at Title 25, chapter 30, MCA, the brief was
due on or before July 13, 2015. Rule 14 of the Municipal Court Appellate Rules provides
that the appellant shall file a brief in the district court “within 15 days after the date on
which the record is filed.” Noel and Marie appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7 We review a district court’s conclusions of law for correctness. Petersen v.
Aladdin Steel Prods., Inc., 1999 MT 262, ¶ 5, 296 Mont. 394, 989 P.2d 385 (reviewing
district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an appeal from a small claims court).
DISCUSSION
¶8 Did the District Court err by dismissing the appeal from Small Claims Court?
¶9 Noel and Marie argue that the District Court erred by dismissing their appeal
based upon Rule 14 of the Municipal Court Appellate Rules, which they argue are
inapplicable to appeals from small claims courts. Todd responds that the Municipal
Court Appellate Rules apply by virtue of § 3-10-115(4), MCA, which provides that
“[u]nless the supreme court establishes rules for appeal from a justice’s court of record to
the district court, the Montana Uniform Municipal Court Rules of Appeal to District
Court, codified in Title 25, chapter 30, apply to appeals to district court from justice’s
court of record.”
¶10 Small claims court is a forum whose purpose is to “provide a speedy remedy for
small claims and to promote a forum in which such claims may be heard and disposed of
without the necessity of a formal trial.” Section 3-10-1001, MCA; § 25-35-501, MCA.
4
Generally, small claims courts have jurisdiction “over all actions for the recovery of
money or specific personal property when the amount claimed does not exceed
$7,000 . . . and the defendant can be served within the county where the action is
commenced.” Section 3-10-1004, MCA; § 25-35-502, MCA.
¶11 Small claims courts are creatures of statute and the Legislature has provided for
their establishment in two ways. First, § 3-10-1002, MCA, establishes a small claims
court as a division of each justice’s court in the state of Montana. Secondly, § 3-12-102,
MCA, provides that a small claims court “may be created within the jurisdiction of the
district court of any county of the state of Montana . . . .” A small claims court that is
part of a district court must be created by resolution of the board of county
commissioners, or by a county-wide initiative. See § 3-12-103(1), MCA.
¶12 Small claims courts are distinct from justices’ courts under legislation enacted by
the Legislature in response to our decision in North Central Servs., Inc. v. Hafdahl, 191
Mont. 440, 443-45, 625 P.2d 56, 58-59 (1981) (overruled on other grounds), which
determined that the prohibitions on legal counsel and jury trials within small claims
proceedings were violations of due process. The new statutory scheme granted a
defendant the options of either proceeding in small claims court while waiving these
rights or removing a case from small claims court to the justice’s court. “Failure to
request removal within the time provided . . . constitutes a waiver by the defendant of the
right to a trial by jury and representation by an attorney . . . .” Section 25-35-605(3),
MCA. We upheld this scheme against a due process challenge in Johnson v. Capital
Ford Garage, 250 Mont. 430, 435, 820 P.2d 1275, 1277 (1991), explaining that the new
5
statute “places the responsibility for preservation of that right on the defendant who must
choose between the peace of mind that comes from representation by counsel, and the
quick, affordable justice available in small claims court.”
¶13 Sections 3-10-1001 through -1005, MCA, govern small claims courts generally,
while §§ 25-35-501 through -807, MCA, specifically govern small claims courts that are
divisions of justices’ courts.1 Sections 3-12-101 through -203, MCA, govern small
claims courts established as parts of district courts, but the small claims procedures
provided in §§ 25-35-501 through -807, MCA, are likewise made applicable to these
courts. Section 3-12-107, MCA. The small claims court at issue in this case is a division
of the Flathead County Justice Court.
¶14 Here, Defendants Noel and Marie did not remove the case from Small Claims
Court to Justice’s Court, and the case accordingly proceeded through the entry of
judgment in the Small Claims Court, from which they took an appeal to the District
Court. Had the case been removed to, and proceeded in, the Justice Court, then the
appeal to District Court would indeed have been governed by the Municipal Court
Appellate Rules codified in Title 25, Chapter 30, as provided by § 3-10-115(4), MCA, for
justices’ courts of record. However, because the case was not removed, it proceeded
before and was appealed from the Small Claims Court. That appeal is governed by the
provisions of §§ 25-35-801 through -807, MCA. The letter to the parties from the Clerk
1
Noel and Marie note that this Court applied these provisions to an appeal from a small claims
court division of justice court to the district court in Petersen v. Aladdin Steel Prods., 1999 MT
262, 264 Mont. 394, 989 P.2d 385.
6
of the District Court and the District Court’s order of dismissal erroneously cited to the
Municipal Court Appellate Rules.
¶15 Section 25-35-803(1), MCA, provides that an appeal from small claims court must
be commenced by giving written notice of appeal to the small claims court and serving a
copy upon the adverse party “within 10 days after entry of judgment.” Noel and Marie
completed this on June 18, 2015, eight days after entry of judgment.
Section 25-35-804(1), MCA, requires the record of the small claims court proceedings to
be transferred to district court within 30 days of that notice, at which time the justice of
the peace is to “notify the parties in writing” that the record has been transferred.
Although it does not appear that the justice of the peace gave this notice to the parties, no
one disputes that the record was transferred. Importantly, these statutory provisions
provide no deadline for the filing of the appellant’s brief in the district court. Any
deadlines would need to be set by adoption of a local rule or by order of the district court.
In any event, the District Court erred by dismissing the appeal on the basis of the briefing
deadline imposed in the inapplicable Municipal Court Appellate Rules.
¶16 Reversed and remanded to the District Court for reinstatement of Noel and
Marie’s appeal and for further proceedings.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
7