No. 80-202
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1980
RICHARD K I N I O N I
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
DESIGN SYSTEMS, I N C . ,
A Montana C o r p o r a t i o n ,
Ted T. T o p o l s k i , B i l l C h i l d e r s ,
L a r r y Dauenhauer,
Defendants
and
SECURITY TRUST and SAVINGS BANK,
D e f e n d a n t and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l District,
I n and f o r t h e County o f C a s c a d e .
Honorable H. W i l l i a m Coder, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
C. L. O v e r f e l t a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, T o o l e and D i e t r i c h ,
B i l l i n g s , Montana
Ronald L o d d e r s a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: November 2 0 , 1980
Decided : 2 4 1980
Filed: 21<(; + ;$$@
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.
P l a i n t i f f R i c h a r d K i n i o n b r o u g h t a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t a c t i o n
a g a i n s t defendant Design Systems, Inc., t h e S e c u r i t y T r u s t and
S a v i n g s Bank ( S e c u r i t y B a n k ) , and s e v e r a l o t h e r s i n J u l y 1 9 7 8 . A
d e f a u l t judgment was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s D e s i g n S y s t e m s ,
Inc. ( D e s i g n ) and S e c u r i t y Bank by t h e C a s c a d e County D i s t r i c t
C o u r t o n December 27, 1 9 7 8 . S e c u r i t y Bank moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e
d e f a u l t judgment o n March 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 . Judge Coder e n t e r e d a n 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 judgment on March 27, 1 9 8 0 . Richard
K i n i o n t i m e l y f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
o r d e r and on J u n e 3 , 1 9 8 0 , f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t o f
supervisory control.
W h o l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y and
e
n o n a p p e a l a b l e and t h a t t h e p r e s e n t case is i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e
e x e r c i s e of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l .
I n S h i e l d s v. P i r k l e R e f r i g e r a t e d F r e i g h t l i n e s ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
Mont . , 5 9 1 P.2d 1 1 2 0 , 36 S t . R e p . 472, we s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d
t h a t a n o r d e r v a c a t i n g a d e f a u l t judgment i s o n l y a p p e a l a b l e as a
f i n a l judgment u n d e r R u l e 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., i f t h e r e s u l t of t h e
o r d e r i s t o f i n a l l y d i s p o s e of t h e case. I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e
o r d e r v a c a t i n g t h e d e f a u l t judgment l e f t t h e case p e n d i n g i n t h e
Cascade County District C o u r t f o r a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . As a
r e s u l t , no f i n a l judgment was e n t e r e d , the District Court o r d e r
was i n t e r l o c u t o r y and t h e a p p e a l is n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s
Court.
K i n i o n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l was
f i l e d t o allow t h i s C o u r t a means of g r a n t i n g him r e l i e f i n the
e v e n t w e d e t e r m i n e d , as w e h a v e , t h a t t h i s c a s e is n o n a p p e a l a b l e .
H e a s s e r t s t h a t t h e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i n
t h e p r e s e n t case would be p r o p e r s i n c e t h e a l t e r n a t i v e remedy, a
t r i a l o n t h e m e r i t s , is w h o l l y i n a d e q u a t e . Plaintiff further
- 2 -
asserts t h a t a w r i t s h o u l d i s s u e to p r e v e n t n e e d l e s s l i t i g a t i o n .
A s i m i l a r i s s u e was p r e s e n t e d i n F i t z g e r a l d v. A e t n a I n s .
Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 1 8 6 , 577 P.2d 370. I n t h a t case, A e t n a
a p p e a l e d f r o m a D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r which g r a n t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f
a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t . Aetna a l s o s o u g h t a w r i t of s u p e r -
v i s o r y c o n t r o l with regard t o a District Court o r d e r denying a
m o t i o n t o s t r i k e two c o u n t s of p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t . This Court
s t a t e d t h a t t h e o r d e r was i n t e r l o c u t o r y and t h e r e f o r e r e v i e w a b l e
o n l y upon a f i n a l j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e s 1 and 2 , M.R.App.Civ.P. Our
h o l d i n g , which f o l l o w s , a l s o d i s p o s e s of t h e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l
i s s u e i n t h e p r e s e n t case:
". . . To p e r m i t r e v i e w o f s u c h a n o r d e r p r i o r t o
f i n a l judgment t h r o u g h t h e d e v i c e of s u p e r -
v i s o r y c o n t r o l or o t h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t is
t o a c c o m p l i s h i n d i r e c t l y t h a t which c a n n o t be
done d i r e c t l y . S e e S t a t e ex r e l . Kosena v.
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 2 1 , 5 6 0 P.2d
522. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e d e c l i n e t o r e v i e w t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion
t o s t r i k e a t t h i s t i m e as t h e i s s u e is n o t p r o -
p e r l y b e f o r e us." 1 7 6 Mont. a t 1 9 5 , 5 7 7 P.2d
a t 375.
The a p p e a l is a c c o r d i n g l y d i s m i s s e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l is d e n i e d and t h e
case is remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .
Chief J u s t i c e
W e concur: '7
/
JUG t i c e s
?
*,
L v