No. 13570
IN THE SUPREMr COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
WILLIAM F.BEO SPRING, S '
&
and KATHLEEN R .BIG SPRING,,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
THE BLACKFEET TRIBE OF THE BLACKFEET
INDIAN RESERVATION, A Corporation,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,
Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Philip E. Roy, Browning, Montana
Graybill, Ostrem, Warner and Crotty, Great Falls,
Montana
Donald Ostrem argued, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondents:
Frisbee and Moore, Cut Bank, Montana
John P. l.1oore argued, Cut Bank, Montana
Submitted: October 6, 1977
~ecided: JAN 11 1370
Filed: 'JA I.! 1. i 1 5 9
.
M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court:
The Blackfeet Tribe of t h e ~ I B c k f e e tIndian Reservation,
appeals from a d e f a u l t judgment of $20,000 damages f o r l i b e l
entered a g a i n s t t h e Tribe by t h e D i s t r i c t Court, G l a c i e r County.
The b a s i s f o r t h e l i b e l a c t i o n was a l e t t e r dated March
18, 1974, a l l e g e d l y w r i t t e n by E a r l Old Person, Chairman of t h e
Blackfeet T r i b e , t o William F . Big Spring, S r . and Kathleen R.
Big Spring. The l e t t e r concerned t h e Big Springs, e n r o l l e d
members of t h e Blackfeet T r i b e , and i t was s e n t t o t h e Big Springs
a s w e l l a s t o o t h e r people o u t s i d e t h e r e s e r v a t i o n .
O March 17, 1976, t h e Big Springs f i l e d a l i b e l a c t i o n
n
a g a i n s t t h e Blackfeet T r i b e . The same day, even though t h e
T r i b e had n o t been served with the complaint and summons and
had made no appearance, t h e a t t o r n e y f o r Big Springs mailed a
request f o r admissions t o t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y , but d i d n o t mail
a copy of t h e summons and complaint. On March 22, 1976, t h e
s h e r i f f served E a r l Old Persons with a copy of t h e summons and
complaint. O A p r i l 2, Big Springs' a t t o r n e y served t h e T r i b e ' s
n
a t t o r n e y with a supplemental request f o r admissions.
The Tribe f a i l e d t o appear within 20 days of t h e d a t e of
service. 22 days a f t e r s e r v i c e , on A p r i l 13, 1976, t h e Big
s p r i n g s ' a t t o r n e y f i l e d t h e o r i g i n a l s h e r i f f ' s r e t u r n on t h e
summons with t h e c l e r k of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and then made w r i t t e n
request f o r t h e c l e r k t o e n t e r the T r i b e ' s d e f a u l t . Default was
entered t h e same day.
Three days a f t e r e n t r y of d e f a u l t , on A p r i l 16, and without
r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e of t h e d e f a u l t , t h e Tribe f i l e d a motion t o
dismiss t h e complaint on t h e grounds t h a t t h e c o u r t lacked j u r i s -
d i c t i o n over t h e s u b j e c t matter ( t h e l i b e l a c t i o n ) and
personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e Tribe. The Tribe mailed a
copy of i t s motion t o dismiss t o t h e Big Springs' a t t o r n e y .
O A p r i l 20, with no n o t i c e t o t h e T r i b e , t h e Big Springs'
n
a t t o r n e y f i l e d a w r i t t e n motion t o s t r i k e t h e T r i b e ' s motion
t o dismiss, a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e Tribe had no r i g h t t o f i l e such
a motion o r t o appear a f t e r i t s d e f a u l t had been entered. No
a u t h o r i t y was c i t e d . On A p r i l 21, t h e t r i a l c o u r t granted t h i s
e x - p a r t e motion and immediately proceeded t o h e a r evidence on
t h e question of l i a b i l i t y and damages. Exhibits were introduced
and witnesses were sworn and t e s t i f i e d . The c o u r t took t h e
matter under advisement.
O A p r i l 2 3 , t h e Tribe f i l e d a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e
n
d e f a u l t .and t o quash t h e summons and dismiss t h e complaint.
The Tribe s e t out s e v e r a l grounds t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t
including t h a t (1) s e r v i c e was not made on t h e proper person,
(2) t h e t r i b a l chairman had no r e c o l l e c t i o n of ever being served,
( 3 ) copies of t h e complaint and summons could n o t be found, and
( 4 ) t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y had no way of determining t h e exact day
of s e r v i c e because t h e o r i g i n a l summons had n o t been returned t o
t h e c l e r k of c o u r t u n t i l t h e day t h e d e f a u l t was taken. The
Tribe again contended t h e c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e
s u b j e c t matter and over t h e Tribe. The T r i b e s t r e s s e d t h a t i t
was appearing s p e c i a l l y and n o t g e n e r a l l y .
Two hearings were held on t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e
t h e d e f a u l t and dismiss t h e complaint. The f i r s t hearing was
t h e r e s u l t of a n o t i c e s e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e Big Springs
on A p r i l 29 s e t t i n g t h e hearing d a t e f o r May 5. This n o t i c e was
d e f i c i e n t under Rules 6(d) and 6 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P., which r e q u i r e
a n o t i c e of a t l e a s t e i g h t days i f s e r v i c e i s made by mail.
Neither t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y nor any of defendants were p r e s e n t
a t t h e hearing. (At a l a t e r hearing t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y
sought t o j u s t i f y h i s absence a t t h e f i r s t hearing by s t a t i n g
he was i n Chicago a t t h e time and had c a l l e d t h e c o u r t a f t e r
l e a r n i n g of t h e hearing d a t e , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t had agreed t o
a continuance. The c o u r t d i d not deny t h i s . ) The c o u r t then
proceeded with i t s hearing and received evidence on t h e question
of s e r v i c e of process. Nothing i n t h e record i n d i c a t e s the
c o u r t r u l e d on t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t , o r
t h a t a minute e n t r y o r o t h e r n o t i c e was s e n t t o the f r i b e ' s
a t t o r n e y informing him of what proceedings had taken place on
t h a t day.
O June
n 2, 1976, t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y s e n t n o t i c e by mail
t o t h e Big s p r i n g s ' a t t o r n e y s e t t i n g a hearing f o r June 9 on
t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t . This n o t i c e was
a l s o d e f i c i e n t under Rules 6(d) and 6 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P., but
a t t o r n e y s f o r both p a r t i e s appeared a t t h e hearing and t h e r e f o r e
n o t i c e h e r e i s not a t i s s u e . O t h e d a t e of t h e hearing, t h e
n
a t t o r n e y f o r t h e Big Springs f i l e d a motion t o quash t h e T r i b e ' s
motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t on t h e grounds t h a t (1) t h e
Tribe had f a i l e d t o appear a t t h e p r i o r h e a r i n g s , (2) t h e Tribe
had no r i g h t t o make any appearances a t t h i s p o i n t , and ( 3 ) t h e
n o t i c e was not accompanied by the motion t o s e t a s i d e o r by an
affidavit. Both a t t o r n e y s presented t h e i r arguments t o t h e
court. The D i s t r i c t Court judge s t a t e d t h a t normally he would
s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t when a motion o r pleading was f i l e d "within
a reasonable time" a f t e r t h e 20 day period, such a s t h i s c a s e ,
b u t concluded:
"* * * b u t t h e problem h e r e , of course, i s t h a t
i t [ t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t ] was
s e t f o r hearing and you f a i l e d t o appear and argue
t h e motion."
The c o u r t then took t h e motion under advisement.
On June 29, without r u l i n g d i r e c t l y t h e motion
s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t entered i t s f i n d i n g s of
f a c t and conclusions of law and awarded t h e Big Springs $20,000
i n damages a g a i n s t t h e Tribe. Judgment was entered J u l y 6
and on t h e same day t h e Big Springs' a t t o r n e y s e n t a copy of
t h e judgment and n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment t o t h e Tribe. On
J u l y 12, t h e Tribe moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment. O J u l y 21,
n
i n a s h o r t order devoid of reasons, t h e t r i a l c o u r t denied t h e
motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment. The Tribe appeals from t h e
c o u r t ' s r u l i n g s f a i l i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t and f a i l i n g
t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment.
O t h e b a s i s of t h e t o t a l circumstances surrounding t h e
n
proceedings i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court we conclude t h e T r i b e was
denied a meaningful opportunity t o appear and be heard. The
D i s t r i c t Court proceedings reek of a d e n i a l of due process and
t h e d e f a u l t judgment and d e f a u l t must be s e t a s i d e .
Rule 5 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., s t a t e s t h a t proof of s e r v i c e
" s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h i n 10 days a f t e r s e r v i c e . F a i l u r e t o make
of
proo-f/service does n o t a f f e c t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e service."
The r u l e , a s s t a t e d , i s unconditional. Here, t h e a t t o r n e y f o r
t h e Big Springs d i d n o t r e t u r n and f i l e t h e summons with proof
of s e r v i c e u n t i l 22 days a f t e r s e r v i c e on E a r l Old Person.
Although t h i s l a t e r e t u r n d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e
s e r v i c e f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l purposes, i t d i d make i t d i f f i c u l t
f o r t h e T r i b e ' s a t t o r n e y t o determine t h e d a t e of s e r v i c e . Here
t h e summons was returned and f i l e d simultaneously with a motion
t o take t h e T r i b e ' s d e f a u l t . I t could w e l l be t h a t t h e f a i l u r e
t o r e t u r n t h e summons w i t h i n t h e time required by t h e r u l e could
have contributed t o t h e T r i b e ' s f a i l u r e t o appear w i t h i n t h e
20 days. Lack of an opportunity t o a c q u i r e t h i s information,
coupled with o t h e r circumstances, may be s u f f i c i e n t "good cause"
t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t under Rule 5 5 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., which s t a t e s
i n part:
"For good cause shown t h e c o u r t may s e t a s i d e
an e n t r y of d e f a u l t **
*.If
Henceforth, i t s h a l l be t h e duty of a l l process s e r v e r s ,
be i t t h e s h e r i f f o r p r i v a t e persons, t o s t r i c t l y comply with
Rule 5 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P. I t i s t h e duty of t h e process s e r v e r t o
r e t u r n t h e summons t o t h e c l e r k of c o u r t w i t h i n 10 days a f t e r
s e r v i c e , and t h i s duty s h a l l only be excused under circumstances
which c o n s t i t u t e "good cause". "Good cause" s h a l l r e l a t e only
t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y which t h e process s e r v e r has i n f i l i n g the
papers with t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c l e r k of c o u r t .
The Tribe f i n d s i t s e l f i n a p o s i t i o n of n o t knowing why
t h e D i s t r i c t Court overruled i t s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t .
Not only d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l t o g i v e reasons f o r denying
t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t , b u t no r u l i n g was d i r e c t e d
t o t h e T r i b e ' s motion. The T r i b e ' s motion was only impliedly
overruled by t h e judgment a g a i n s t t h e T r i b e . I n m a t t e r s of such
importance t h e p a r t i e s a r e e n t i t l e d n o t only t o a d i r e c t r u l i n g
from t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e motion, but they a r e a l s o e n t i t l e d
t o know t h e reasons f o r t h e r u l i n g . I n i t s motion t h e T r i b e s e t
out s u b s t a n t i a l grounds why t h e d e f a u l t should be s e t a s i d e , and
s i n c e t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o d i s c u s s these grounds, we
cannot uphold the r u l e t h a t a judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t comes
t o us a s presumptively c o r r e c t . W adhere t o our r u l e t h a t t h i s
e
Court does n o t f a v o r d e f a u l t s , b u t r a t h e r , f a v o r s an a d j u d i -
c a t i o n on t h e m e r i t s whenever p o s s i b l e . Lindsey v. Keenan, (1946),
118 Mont. 312, 322, 165 P.2d 804. See a l s o : Schwab v. B u l l o c k ' s
Inc., ( 9 t h C i r . 1974), 508 F.2d 353,355; 10 Wright & M i l l e r ,
F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & Procedure: C i v i l $2681, pp. 248-251.
I t follows n a t u r a l l y t h a t i f t h e d e f a u l t must be s e t a s i d e
s o must t h e judgment. However, t h e r e a r e independent reasons why
t h e d e f a u l t judgment must be s e t a s i d e , even i f t h e d e f a u l t was
allowed t o s t a n d .
Once t h e T r i b e f i l e d i t s i n i t i a l motion t o d i s m i s s b e f o r e
judgment was e n t e r e d , i t was e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e of a l l subse-
quent proceedings, b u t i t was denied t h i s n o t i c e . Rule 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) ,
M.R.Civ.P., states i n part:
"* Jc * I f t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom judgment by
d e f a u l t i s sought h a s appeared i n t h e a c t i o n ,
he ( o r , i f appearing by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , h i s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ) s h a l l b e served w i t h w r i t t e n
n o t i c e of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r judgment a t l e a s t
t h r e e days p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g on such a p p l i c a -
t i o n . 3r * *"
S e c t i o n 93-8505, R.C.M. 1947, a l s o e n t i t l e s a p a r t y t o n o t i c e
of subsequent proceedings a f t e r a n "appearance" by t h a t p a r t y .
This section s t a t e s i n p a r t :
" A defendant appears i n an a c t i o n when he
answers, f i l e s H-motion, o r g i v e s t h e p l a i n t i f f
w r i t t e n n o t i c e of h i s appearance *.Ir **
(Emphasis added).
Two days a f t e r d e f a u l t was e n t e r e d , b u t b e f o r e d e f a u l t
judgment was taken, t h e T r i b e f i l e d i t s motion t o d i s m i s s on
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l grounds. A motion t o d i s m i s s on t h e b a s i s of l a c k
of s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n may be r a i s e d a t any time. Rule
1 2 ( h ) ( 3 ) , M.R.Civ.P.; I"gm'
.Wd v . McCloskey & Co.,(Brd C i r . 1965),
342 F.2d 495, 497, c e r t . den. 382 U.S. 823, 86 S.Ct. 52, 15
L ed 2d 68; Rath Packing Co. v. Becker, ( 9 t h C i r . 1975), 530 F.2d
1295, 1303. Moreover, t h i s Court has long held a motion
a t t a c k i n g t h e complaint, a s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , i s s u f f i c i e n t
t o a c t a s an appearance. Donlan v. Thompson F a l l s Copper &
Milling-Co., (1910), 42 Mont. 257, 112 P. 445.
Even though t h e Tribe denominated i t s appearance a s a
s p e c i a l one, i t was s t i l l an appearance under any circumstances.
Under Rule 12, M.R.Civ.P., t h e r e i s no longer a d i s t i n c t i o n
between g e n e r a l and s p e c i a l appearances. Under Rule 12(b)
l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n may be a s s e r t e d e i t h e r i n t h e responsive
pleading o r by motion; Rule 12(g) allows c o n s o l i d a t i o n of Rule
12(b) defenses; and Rule 12(h) (1) r e q u i r e s a p a r t y t o r a i s e t h e
defense of l a c k of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n i n h i s i n i t i a l pleading
The T r i b e complied with each of t h e s e r u l e s .
Since t h e Tribe properly appeared, i t follows t h a t it was
I
improper f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o g r a n t t h e Big Springs' ex p a r t e
motion t o s t r i k e t h e ~ r i b e ' smotion t o dismiss. Once t h e Tribe
f i l e d i t s appearance t h e Big Springs were required t o g i v e n o t i c e
t o t h e Tribe of any opposing motion. Rule 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.,
provides i n p a r t :
"* * * Except a s o t h e r wise provided i n t h e s e
r u l e s , every *** w r i t t e n motion o t h e r than one
which may be heard ex p a r t e , and every w r i t t e n
notice *** and s i m i l a r paper s h a l l be served upon
each of t h e p a r t i e s . * * *"
I t i s c l e a r t h e t r i a l c o u r t had no procedural a u t h o r i t y
s t r i k e t h e T r i b e ' s motion t o dismiss. Once t h e T r i b e had made
i t s appearance by f i l i n g i t s motion t o dismiss, i t was t h e
duty of t h e court t o r e q u i r e n o t i c e t o t h e Tribe of any opposing
motion. Moreover, t h e D i s t r i c t Court had a duty t o r u l e on
t h e T r i b e ' s motion before proceeding t o judgment. Paramount
~ u b l j #Corp. v. Boucher, (1933), 93 Mont. 340, 347, 19 P. 2d 223.
Even assuming t h e D i s t r i c t Court ruled a g a i n s t t h e T r i b e
on i t s motion t o dismiss and t h e Tribe d i d n o t f u r t h e r plead
within t h e time requirements, t h e Big Springs s t i l l had t h e
duty t o give a t l e a s t a t h r e e day n o t i c e t o t h e Tribe before
a hearing could be held on t h e Big Springs' a p p l i c a t i o n t o
(2)
take judgment. Rule 55(b)/, M.R.Civ.P. This, of course, was
n o t done, and the Tribe had no opportunity t o p a r t i c i p a t e a t
t h e hearing where t h e t r i a l judge heard evidence upon which t h e
judgment was based.
These f a i l u r e s t o give proper n o t i c e were f a t a l t o t h e
judgment. Under t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e circumstances such a s
e x i s t i n t h i s case, we can s e e no u s e f u l punpose i n s e t t i n g
a s i d e t h e judgment only t o allow t h e p a r t i e s t o r e l i t i g a t e t h e
question of whether t h e d e f a u l t should be s e t a s i d e . The e n t i r e
proceedings were s o lacking such a s t o c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l of
due process.
The t r i a l c o u r t has n o t y e t ruled on t h e i s s u e s of j u r i s -
d i c t i o n over t h e s u b j e c t matter and personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over
t h e T r i b e , and we r e f r a i n from deciding t h e s e i s s u e s . Similarly,
t h e proper t e s t f o r damages i n a defamation a c t i o n i s n o t properly
b e f o r e t h i s Court a t t h i s time. For i n s t r u c t i o n s regarding t h e
c o r r e c t b a s i s of damages i n a defamation a c t i o n , however, we
d i r e c t t h e D i s c r i c t Court's a t t e n t i o n t o New York Times Co. v.
S u l l i v a n , (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 1 L ed 2d 686,
1
95 ALR2d 1412; Gertz v. Welch, (1974), 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct.
2997, 41 L ed 2d 789, and r e l a t e d f e d e r a l c a s e s .
W vacate t h e d e f a u l t judgment and t h e d e f a u l t and remand
e
with d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o r u l e on t h e T r i b e ' s
motion t o d i s m i s s and proceed f u r t h e r under t h e p r o p e r r u l e s
o f c i v i l procedure.
. -.
.
Chief J u s t i c e