Audit Services, Inc. v. Kraus Construction, Inc.

No. 79-80 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 A U D I T SERVICES, I N C . , a Montana C o r p . , P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , KRAUS CONSTRUCTION, I N C . , a c o r p . , and JAMES KRAUS, SR., d / b / a KRAUS CONSTRUCTION D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighth 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 County o f C a s c a d e , The H o n o r a b l e J o e l G. Roth, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: B a r r y T. O l s o n , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent : Cure and Borer, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : May 27, 1980 Decided: J u l y 22, 1980 Filed: JUL 2 3 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway 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. A p p e l l a n t s Kraus C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . , and James Kraus, S r . , a p p e a l from a n e n t r y of a d e f a u l t judgment and a n o r d e r r e f u s i n g t o v a c a t e t h e judgment. The o r d e r of d e f a u l t w a s e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t due t o a p p e l l a n t s ' f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h e a r l i e r d i s c o v e r y o r d e r s . The s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n 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 judgment e n t e r e d a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t s f o r f a i l u r e t o answer t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s under t h e circum- s t a n c e s s e t f o r t h below. Respondent A u d i t S e r v i c e s , I n c . , i s a c o l l e c t i o n agency f o r a u n i o n t r u s t fund. A s such, it brought t h i s a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e a p p e l l a n t s ' a l l e g e d o b l i g a t i o n t o make c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e t r u s t fund under a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g compliance agreement. Although t h e judgment h e r e was e n t e r e d on March 5 , 1979, t h i s l a w s u i t was i n i t i a t e d o v e r t h r e e and one-half y e a r s e a r l i e r i n O c t o b e r 1975. The f a c t s r e v e a l t h a t t h i s a p p e a l i s n o t concerned w i t h t h e t y p i c a l " f i r s t a p p e a r a n c e " d e f a u l t judgment i n which a d e f e n d a n t i s s e r v e d w i t h summons and a c o m p l a i n t b u t f a i l s t o a p p e a r w i t h i n twenty d a y s a s a l l o w e d by law. Rather, here t h e record i n i t i a l l y p r e s e n t s a p i c t u r e of a v i g o r o u s l y c o n t e s t e d l a w s u i t . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d by t h r e e con- s e c u t i v e law f i r m s . It further reveals t h a t appellants s u b s e q u e n t l y abandoned t h e i r d e f e n s e s , and o n l y a f t e r s e v e r a l u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o have a p p e l l a n t s reinvolve themselves d i d t h e c o u r t f i n a l l y e n t e r a default. Now, f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y of t h e d e f a u l t by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a p p e l l a n t s a t t a c k t h e d e f a u l t judgment e s s e n t i a l l y on p r o c e d u r a l , r a t h e r t h a n s u b s t a n t i v e , grounds. I n i t s o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t f i l e d October 6, 1975, r e s p o n - d e n t s o u g h t t o c o l l e c t $5,095.03 i n d e l i n q u e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s owed by a p p e l l a n t Kraus C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . , t o respondent's a s s i g n o r s , t r u s t e e s of a c e r t a i n Montana c o n s t r u c t i o n i n - d u s t r y employee b e n e f i t t r u s t fund, t o g e t h e r w i t h r e a s o n a b l e attorney fees. Having been s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s , a p p e l l a n t s f a i l e d t o a p p e a r w i t h i n twenty d a y s of t h e s e r v i c e . A " f i r s t appearance" d e f a u l t judgment was e n t e r e d . Execution i s s u e d and a judgment was c o l l e c t e d by t h e Cascade County sheriff. The e x e c u t i o n by t h e s h e r i f f on f u n d s of Kraus Construction, Inc., prompted a p p e l l a n t s t o t a k e a c t i o n . A p p e l l a n t s moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment, and f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g on December 11, 1975, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion. On December 1 6 , 1975, a p p e l l a n t s f i l e d t h e i r answer and added a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a r e f u n d of $477.09 f o r a l l e g e d overpayments t o r e s p o n d e n t ' s a s s i g n o r s . I n J a n u a r y 1976 a p p e l l a n t moved f o r a r e t u r n of t h e f u n d s c o l l e c t e d under t h e s h e r i f f ' s l e v y . On F e b r u a r y 4 , 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e r e t u r n of a p o r t i o n of those funds with t h e balance being deposited with t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t . On A p r i l 29, 1976, a n a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i - f i c a t i o n was f i l e d by P a t Kraus. P a t Kraus i s t h e w i f e of James Kraus, S r . , b u t t h e a f f i d a v i t f a i l e d t o a l l e g e any r e l a t i o n t o t h e t h e n s o l e d e f e n d a n t , Kraus ~ o n s t r u c t i o n , Inc. P u r s u a n t t o t h e a f f i d a v i t , t h e d i s t r i c t judge d i s q u a l i - f i e d h i m s e l f and t h e Honorable R . J. Nelson assumed j u r i s - diction. Discovery was i n i t i a t e d on J u n e 2 5 , 1976, w i t h a p p e l - l a n t s ' f i r s t i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s . The b a l a n c e of 1976 and t h e f i r s t t e n months of 1977 were consumed by r e p e a t e d a p p e a r a n c e s b e f o r e t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t t o v e r t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of r e s p o n d e n t ' s answers t o t h o s e re- q u e s t s and i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and by amending and supplement- i n g v e r s i o n s of t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s profounded by a p p e l l a n t s and r e s p o n d e n t ' s s u b s e q u e n t r e s p o n s e s t o them. During t h i s t i m e , Judge Nelson r e t i r e d from t h e bench and was succeeded by t h e Honorable H. William Coder i n J a n u a r y 1977. Because Judge C o d e r ' s former law f i r m was r e p r e s e n t i n g a p p e l l a n t s , h e d i s q u a l i f i e d h i m s e l f , c a l l i n g i n f i r s t t h e Honorable W . W. L e s s l e y and s u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e Honorable J o e l G . Roth. It w a s n o t u n t i l November 1, 1977, t h a t a p p e l l a n t s had f i l e d and A u d i t S e r v i c e s had answered f o u r sets of i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . I n t h e i n t e r i m , t h e r e had been two h e a r i n g s c a l l e d by a p p e l - l a n t s t o q u e s t i o n t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h o s e r e s p o n s e s . R e s p o n d e n t ' s d i s c o v e r y began w i t h t h e d e p o s i t i o n of James Kraus, S r . , t a k e n November 1 7 , 1977. H e was t h e p r i n c i p a l i n Kraus C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . , and a n o r i g i n a l l y - named d e f e n d a n t . ( I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e Kraus Con- s t r u c t i o n , Inc., w a s n o t organized a s a corporation u n t i l F e b r u a r y 1976, some f i v e months a f t e r t h e l a w s u i t began.) A l s o i n November 1977, a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of r e s p o n d e n t con- d u c t e d a new a u d i t of a p p e l l a n t s ' r e c o r d s c o v e r i n g t h e p e r i o d of May 1, 1975 t o J u n e 3 0 , 1977. Following t h e d e p o s i t i o n of James Kraus, S r . , r e s p o n - d e n t moved t o amend i t s c o m p l a i n t t o combine t h e amounts claimed i n t h e o r i g i n a l complaint with t h e delinquencies r e v e a l e d by t h e a u d i t conducted i n November 1977. The amended c o m p l a i n t a l s o s o u g h t t o h o l d James Kraus, S r . , p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e f o r t h e d e b t s of Kraus C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . A h e a r i n g on t h e r e q u e s t t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t was s e t f o r December 2 1 , 1977. However, one day b e f o r e t h a t h e a r - i n g , a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y s moved e x p a r t e t o withdraw. The motion i n d i c a t e d t h a t a copy had been s e r v e d on a p p e l l a n t s . On t h e same day, t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y s c o u l d withdraw. The c o u r t ' s o r d e r s t a t e d t h a t a copy was t o be s e r v e d by t h e s h e r i f f on James Kraus, S r . , and t h a t a p p e l - l a n t s were t o a p p e a r t h r o u g h new c o u n s e l w i t h i n twenty d a y s . Respondent, i n t u r n , v a c a t e d i t s December 21, 1977, h e a r i n g . A p p e l l a n t s f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r and d i d nothing. On J a n u a r y 3 0 , 1978, r e s p o n d e n t r e n o t i c e d i t s h e a r i n g on t h e motion f o r l e a v e t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t . Hearing on t h e motion was s e t f o r F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1978. Since a p p e l l a n t s had f a i l e d t o r e t a i n new c o u n s e l , a copy o f t h e n o t i c e was s e r v e d upon t h e i r former a t t o r n e y s and upon James Kraus, S r . , p e r s o n a l l y . On F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1978, a p p e l l a n t s r e t a i n e d new c o u n s e l and a p p e a r e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion f o r l e a v e t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t . On F e b r u a r y 23, 1978, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t S e r v i c e s l e a v e t o f i l e a p o r t i o n of i t s amended complaint. A p p e l l a n t s f i l e d t h e i r answer on March 1 4 , 1978. On A p r i l 27, 1978, r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d i t s f i r s t r e q u e s t s f o r admissions. These r e q u e s t s s e t f o r t h r e s p o n d e n t ' s t h e o r y of i t s c a s e , a s k i n g Kraus C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . , to a d m i t t h a t i t was a p a r t y t o v a r i o u s c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g agreements and t r u s t agreements u n d e r l y i n g r e s p o n d e n t ' s claim. A p p e l l a n t s w e r e f u r t h e r asked t o a d m i t t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e a u d i t s u n d e r l y i n g t h e d o l l a r amount of t h e amended complaint. Copies of t h e s e a u d i t s w e r e a t t a c h e d t o t h e e x h i b i t s f o r t h e r e q u e s t s f o r admission. Appellants f i l e d a timely response t o t h e requests. They d e n i e d t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e a u d i t s , s p e c i f i c a l l y denying f i r s t t h a t a l l of t h e p e r s o n s l i s t e d i n t h e a u d i t were employees and second, t h a t t h e p e r s o n s l i s t e d t h e r e i n performed work coming under t h e s c o p e of r e l e v a n t c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g agreements. Based on t h o s e d e n i a l s , r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d i t s f i r s t i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on J u n e 2 , 1978. Those i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s sought s p e c i f i c information underlying a p p e l l a n t s ' denial-- a s k i n g which of t h e p e r s o n s l i s t e d i n t h e a u d i t s of a p p e l - l a n t s ' p a y r o l l r e c o r d s were n o t i n f a c t i t s employees, and which of them d i d n o t perform work coming w i t h i n t h e scope of t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g agreements. Appellants f a i l e d t o answer t h o s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s o r t o t e n d e r any o b j e c t i o n s t o them. Having r e c e i v e d no answers t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , on October 3, 1978, r e s p o n d e n t moved f o r a n o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g a p p e l l a n t s under Rule 37, M.R.Civ.P. A h e a r i n g on t h i s motion was s e t f o r October 25, 1978. One day b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g , on October 2 4 , 1978, a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y s made a n e x p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o withdraw as counsel. T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n was g r a n t e d , and a n o t h e r of r e s p o n d e n t ' s motions t o b r i n g t h i s l a w s u i t t o f r u i t a t i o n had t o be p u t o f f . A s w i t h t h e w i t h d r a w a l of a p p e l l a n t s ' first c o u n s e l , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d a copy of t h e o r d e r a l l o w i n g t h e w i t h d r a w a l of a p p e l l a n t s ' second c o u n s e l and r e q u i r i n g new c o u n s e l t o a p p e a r w i t h i n twenty d a y s t o be s e r v e d upon James Kraus, S r . Once a g a i n , a p p e l l a n t s f a i l e d t o obey t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r . On J a n d a r y , 3 , 1979, r e s p o n d e n t , a f t e r w a i t i n g a p p r o x i - m a t e l y two months f o r a p p e l l a n t s t o do something, r e n o t i c e d i t s r e q u e s t f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e long-pending motion t o compel answers t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s s u b m i t t e d some s e v e n months e a r l i e r . Hearing w a s s e t f o r J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1979. Once a g a i n , a copy w a s s e n t t o James R r a u s , S r . , and t o h i s former a t t o r n e y s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e r e s e t t h e h e a r i n g from J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1979 t o J a n u a r y 25, 1979, b e c a u s e of a c o n f l i c t i n i t s c a l e n d a r . An o r d e r f o r t h e change of t h i s d a t e was s e r v e d on James Kraus, S r . , and t h e r e i s no d e n i a l t h a t h e r e c e i v e d it. P u r s u a n t t o t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r , a h e a r i n g on r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion t o compel answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s was f i n a l l y h e l d on J a n u a r y 25, 1979. N a p p e a r a n c e w a s made by o r on b e h a l f o of a p p e l l a n t s . However, t h e r e l i e f awarded by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s s t r i c t l y i n a c c o r d w i t h t h a t p r o v i d e d by Rule 37, M.R.Civ.P. A p p e l l a n t s were g i v e n a n a d d i t i o n a l twenty d a y s t o answer t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , o r i n l i e u t h e r e o f , t h e i r answer was deemed s t r i c k e n such t h a t t h e i r d e f a u l t c o u l d be entered. A copy of t h i s o r d e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 29, 1979, was s e r v e d on James Kraus, S r . , and he d o e s n o t deny r e c e i v i n g it. A p p e l l a n t s f a i l e d t o obey t h e f i n a l o r d e r of t h e c o u r t by answering t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and no new c o u n s e l a p p e a r e d f o r them r e g a r d i n g t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . On F e b r u a r y 26, 1979, r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a n o t i c e of i t s i n t e n t i o n t o a p p l y f o r a judgment of d e f a u l t on March 5 , 1979, a t t h e Cascade County Courthouse. Kraus w a s s e r v e d w i t h a copy of t h i s n o t i c e a l s o , and h e d o e s n o t deny re- c e i v i n g it. The h e a r i n g on r e s p o n d e n t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d e f a u l t judgment was h e l d on March 5, 1979. N one a p p e a r e d on o b e h a l f of a p p e l l a n t s . R e s p o n d e n t ' s a t t o r n e y s were sworn and t e s t i f i e d concerning a t t o r n e y f e e s . A judgment i n con- formance w i t h t h e d e f a u l t was e n t e r e d on arch 7, 1979. N o t i c e of i t s e n t r y was m a i l e d by t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t t o James Kraus, S r . , and he d o e s n o t deny r e c e i v i n g i t . Following e n t r y of t h e d e f a u l t , a p p e l l a n t s d i d n o t h i n g . On March 8 , 1979, on a p p l i c a t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s i g n e d a n o r d e r r e l e a s i n g t h e f u n d s which had been h e l d by t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t s i n c e t h e i r o r i g i n a l d e p o s i t i n 1975 when t h e f i r s t d e f a u l t judgment was s e t a s i d e . A copy of t h a t o r d e r was f i l e d on James Kraus, S r . , and he d o e s n o t deny r e c e i v i n g i t . On March 1 4 , 1979, a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n was i s s u e d , and l e v y w a s made by t h e Cascade County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e on March 1 9 , 1979, which r e s u l t e d i n s e c u r i n g $2,100 on d e p o s i t i n a bank a c c o u n t o f one of appellants. This execution apparently brought a p p e l l a n t s around t o d o i n g something, and on t h e same day James Kraus, S r . , d e l i v e r e d f i l e s t o a new a t t o r n e y . Immediately a f t e r and e a r l y i n A p r i l 1979 a number of p l e a d i n g s were f i l e d by a p p e l l a n t s ' new c o u n s e l . A notice of a p p e a l was f i l e d and l a t e r withdrawn. Then a motion f o r a new t r i a l was f i l e d , even though t h e r e had n e v e r been a trial. T h e r e a f t e r , a p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e w i t h d r a w a l of t h e i r second c o u n s e l a l o n g w i t h a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment s u p p o r t e d by an a f f i d a v i t o f James Kraus, S r . A p p e l l a n t s t h e n e x p a r t e s o u g h t and o b t a i n e d a s t a y of e x e c u t i o n . The motion c o n c e r n i n g t h e w i t h d r a w a l of a p p e l l a n t s ' second a t t o r n e y s w a s h e a r d on A p r i l 2 0 , 1978. Based on t h e a f f i d a v i t of James Kraus, S r . , and on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e motion of t h e law f i r m d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s had a s s e n t e d t o o r acknowledged t h e w i t h d r a w a l of t h e f i r m , t h e ~ i s t r i c Court determined t h a t t h e order p e r m i t t i n g t h e t w i t h d r a w a l of c o u n s e l was improper and s e t t h e same a s i d e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e f e r r e d a h e a r i n g on a p p e l l a n t s ' p o s t - judgment motions pending t h e i r d e c i s i o n as t o who was g o i n g t o r e p r e s e n t them t h e r e a f t e r . A p r o p e r s u b s t i t u t i o n of c o u n s e l was s i g n e d on May 1 7 , 1979, and s e r v e d on a l l concerned on May 2 3 , 1979. D e s p i t e t h e t i m e l i m i t s s e t i n Rule 60, M.R.Civ.P., for t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of motions t o v a c a t e d e f a u l t judgments, a p p e l l a n t s d i d n o t h i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e i r pending post-judgment motions u n t i l J u l y 11, 1979, when t h e y n o t i c e d them f o r h e a r i n g on August 9, 1979. A t t h a t t i m e a hearing w a s held i n c o u r t chambers. N t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n ; t h e h e a r i n g o c o n s i s t e d s o l e l y of a p p e l l a n t s ' arguments. After hearing t h e arguments, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e d t o g r a n t any o f a p p e l l a n t s ' motions, and t h e d e f a u l t judgment was a l l o w e d t o stand. A p p e l l a n t s t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d t h i s a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of August 9, 1979. The s o l e i s s u e f o r r e v i e w i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n 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 judgment and d e f a u l t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t s f o r f a i l u r e t o answer i n - t e r r o g a t o r i e s under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e . A p p e l l a n t s make two arguments f o r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. The f i r s t i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n imposing s u c h a h a r s h s a n c t i o n . Second, a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e w i t h d r a w a l of t h e i r second c o u n s e l r e t r o a c t i v e l y s e t a s i d e a s improper, " t a i n t e d " a l l s u b s e q u e n t p r o c e e d i n g s and, t h e r e f o r e , the default judgment must be s e t a s i d e . W f i n d n e i t h e r argument t o e have m e r i t . A p p e l l a n t s r e l y s t r o n g l y on t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t d e f a u l t judgments a r e n o t f a v o r e d and no g r e a t a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n need b e found by t h i s C o u r t t o s e t a s i d e such a judgment. A p p e l l a n t s r e l y p r i n c i p a l l y on t h e f o l l o w i n g cases: Kootenai Corp. v. Dayton ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. I 601 P.2d 47, 36 St.Rep. 1785, 1790-1791; L i t t l e Horn S t a t e Bank v . R e a l B i r d ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. -, 598 P.2d 1109, 36 St.Rep. 1495; 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 , Inc. (1979), - Mont. -, 591 P.2d 1120, 1125, 36 St.Rep. 472. W e have reviewed t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s and f i n d them n o t i n p o i n t with t h i s case. Each of them d e a l w i t h " f i r s t appearance" d e f a u l t judgments. Another c a s e c i t e d and r e l i e d upon by a p p e l l a n t s , Simpkins v . Simpkins ( 1 8 9 4 ) , 1 4 Mont. 386, 36 P. 759, d e a l s w i t h a d e f a u l t o t h e r t h a n t h e " f i r s t appearance" d e f a u l t . However, Simpkins can e a s i l y b e distinguished. There t h e l i t i g a t i o n was s t i l l i n i t s p r e - l i m i n a r y s t a g e s and t h e d e f a u l t e n t e r e d was s o l e l y due t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e of a n o u t - o f - s t a t e attorney. Such i s n o t t h e case here. W c a n , however, f i n d c a s e s from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s e a n a l o g o u s t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e , p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e a p p e l l a n t d e l i b e r a t e l y r e f u s e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n d i s c o v e r y o r t o comply w i t h a n o r d e r of t h e c o u r t i s s u e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 37 of t h e Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e and whose a t t o r n e y withdraws d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h i s noncom- pliance. Most a n a l o g o u s i s G a l l e g o s v . F r a n k l i n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 89 N.M. 118, 547 P.2d 1160, c e r t . den. 549 P.2d 284. There t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a r e f u l l y reviewed t h e r e c o r d which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s had f a i l e d t o answer i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s o r otherwise cooperate with p r e t r i a l discovery. I n t h a t case a p p e l l a n t s t a t t o r n e y s withdrew d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . T h e r e a f t e r t h e p l a i n t i f f s s e r v e d upon t h e a p p e l l a n t s a n o t i c e of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d e f a u l t judgment. The d e f a u l t was based on t h e a p p e l l a n t s t noncompliance w i t h t h e r u l e s of d i s c o v e r y and t h e e x p l i c i t a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r e n t r y o f s u c h a d e f a u l t under Rule 37. I n G a l l e g o s t h e d e f a u l t judgment was allowed t o stand, w i t h t h e c o u r t s t a t i n g a s a u t h o r i t y lan- guage f r o m H. F. Livermore Corp. v. ~ k t i e n g e s e l l s c h a f t Gebruder Loepfe ( D . C . Cir. 1 9 7 0 ) , 432 F.2d 689, where t h e c o u r t held: "Given t h i s approach, t h e d e f a u l t judgment must n o r m a l l y b e viewed a s a v a i l a b l e o n l y when t h e a d v e r s a r y p r o c e s s h a s been h a l t e d b e c a u s e of an e s s e n t i a l l y unresponsive party. In that i n s t a n c e , t h e d i l i g e n t p a r t y must be p r o t e c t e d l e s t he be f a c e d w i t h i n t e r m i n a b l e d e l a y and continued u n c e r t a i n t y as t o h i s r i g h t s . The d e f a u l t judgment remedy s e r v e s a s s u c h a pro- t e c t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a d e f a u l t i s a d e t e r r e n t t o t h o s e p a r t i e s who choose d e l a y a s p a r t o f t h e i r l i t i g a t i v e s t r a t e - gy* " 432 F.2d a t 691. A f t e r q u o t i n g Livermore, t h e c o u r t i n G a l l e g o s went on t o say: "From J a n u a r y 29, 1974, t o November 1 8 , 1974, a p e r i o d o f t e n months, t h e d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . A d e f a u l t judgment may be e n t e r e d . See Rules 5 5 ( a ) and 3 7 ( d ) of t h e Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . "In addition, defendants f i l e d a consent t o the w i t h d r a w a l o f a t t o r n e y s a f t e r t h e d e f a u l t judg- ment was e n t e r e d . Defendants, having n o t i c e of t h e motion f o r w i t h d r a w a l , f a i l e d t o o b t a i n o t h e r a t t o r n e y s , f a i l e d t o appear a t t h e hear- i n g on t h e motion f o r d e f a u l t judgment, and f a i l e d t o show any c a u s e , o r a l o r w r i t t e n , why t h e d e f a u l t judgment s h o u l d n o t be e n t e r e d . "To g r a n t t h e d e f e n d a n t s a r e v e r s a l now means t h a t w e would g i v e c r e d e n c e t o e s s e n t i a l l y u n r e s p o n s i v e p a r t i e s , and c o n s e n t t h a t t h e y may h a l t t h e a d v e r s a r y p r o c e s s and e n d l e s s l y d e l a y t h e r i g h t s o f p l a i n t i f f . The p h i l o s o p h y of t h e l a w of c i v i l p r o c e d u r e m i l i t a t e s a g a i n s t t h i s p r o t r a c t e d wearisome c o n d u c t . " Gallegos, 547 P.2d a t 1164-1165. The same r e a s o n i n g c a n be a p p l i e d t o a p p e l l a n t s h e r e . See a l s o Johnson v . M a t e l i c h ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 165 Mont. 329, 517 P.2d A s t o t h e second p a r t of a p p e l l a n t s ' argument, i n t h e a f f i d a v i t f i l e d w i t h t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment, James Kraus, S r . , s t a t e d t h a t he thought t h a t h i s second c o u n s e l was s t i l l r e p r e s e n t i n g a p p e l l a n t s u n t i l J a n u a r y 29, 1979, even though t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had p e r - m i t t e d t h e i r w i t h d r a w a l on October 2 4 , 1978. Appellants make much of t h e argument t h a t t h e r e w e r e no c o u n t e r a f f i - d a v i t s and s o K r a u s ' s a f f i d a v i t was t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e upon which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have based i t s d e c i s i o n . We f i n d t h i s argument w i t h o u t m e r i t . As t o the f i r s t point, t h e a f f i d a v i t h a s t o be a c c e p t e d f o r what i t a c t u a l l y i s - - a s e l f - s e r v i n g document drawn by appellants1 attorney. The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a f f i d a v i t s " a r e commonly r e g a r d e d a s weak e v i d e n c e , t o b e r e c e i v e d w i t h c a u t i o n , " and t h a t " t h e y a r e n o t c o n c l u s i v e of t h e f a c t s s t a t e d t h e r e i n even though n o t c o n t r a d i c t e d by c o u n t e r - affidavits." 32A C.J.S. Evidence 81032 a t 706. See a l s o Lohman v. Lohman ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 29 Cal.2d 1 4 4 , 173 P.2d 657, 660. Here t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t b e l i e d t h e t e s t i m o n y of K r a u s l s a f f i d a v i t , even though t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a t e r n u l l i f i e d t h e withdrawal order. T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t a copy of t h e ' o r d e r a l l o w i n g t h e w i t h d r a w a l of t h e f i r m was s e r v e d on James Kraus, S r . A r e c e i p t was a t t a c h e d t o t h e o r d e r of w i t h d r a w a l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e Cascade County s h e r i f f s e r v e d Kraus w i t h a copy of t h e o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g w i t h d r a w a l on October 28, 1978. While a p p e l l a n t s claim t h a t t h e y had no " n o t i c e " o f t h e October 24 o r d e r , t h e y d i d n o t c o u n t e r t h e f a c t t h a t i t was s e r v e d upon Kraus and t h a t he was p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d w i t h a l l t h e m o t i o n s , n o t i c e s and o r d e r s subsequently f i l e d . There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t Kraus, a n e x p e r i e n c e d , c a p a b l e businessman, had s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e t o know what was g o i n g on and y e t c h o s e t o i g n o r e i t a t c o n s i d e r a b l e r i s k t o h i m s e l f and h i s c o r p o r a t i o n . I n Johnson v. M a t e l i c h , s u p r a , i n r e f u s i n g t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t a n o t h e r d e l i b e r a t e l y u n r e s p o n s i v e l i t i g a n t , t h i s Court noted: "Defendant h a s made no showing of why h e f a i l e d t o f i l e an answer w i t h i n t h e t i m e g r a n t e d by the d i s t r i c t court. Defendant now asserts t h a t h e w i l l be p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e he h a s a good de- f e n s e t o t h e c l a i m s and now w i l l b e u n a b l e t o assert the defense. If defendant is in any way prejudiced, the record clearly shows that it is by his own failure and disregard to as- sert his rights when available to him." 163 Mont. at 335, 517 P.2d at 734. We note particularly the trial court's order of January 29, 1979. Noncompliance with it formed the basis of the default judgment under Rule 37. That order required appel- lants to answer interrogatories served eight months earlier on June 2, 1978. As of the date of respondent's brief before us, some twenty-two months after the interrogatories were filed, appellants made no attempt to answer the inter- rogatories or conform in the slightest with the trial court's order. On this record we cannot find an abuse of discretion in the refusal of the trial court to set aside the default judgment. Appellants did not offer proper answers to the interrogatories at any time or explain or justify their refusal to comply. Such matters, in our opinion, would be a prerequisite to establishing an abuse of discretion. Given the length of time involved, appellants' default coupled with their ongoing refusal to rectify it, we are convinced that appellants failed to meet a showing required under Rule 60(d), M.R.Civ.P., and the District Court was correct in refusing to set aside its default judgment. The next issue raised was whether the withdrawal of appellants' second set of attorneys voided all subsequent proceedings. Appellants rely upon McPartlin v. Fransen (1978) - Mont. , 582 P.2d 1255, 35 St.Rep. 1191. In McPartlin this Court ruled under section 93-2104, R.C.M. 1947, now section 37-61-405, MCA, that when an attorney withdraws without consent of his client, the opposing party must "notify" the unrepresented party to have counsel appear before the former may proceed with the action. Appellants now c l a i m t h a t r e s p o n d e n t d i d n o t m e e t t h a t r e q u i r e m e n t . We disagree. I n M c P a r t l i n we n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was no h a r d - a n d - f a s t r u l e on how t h e s t a t u t o r y " n o t i c e " must be g i v e n t o t h e u n r e p r e s e n t e d p a r t y and s t a t e d : "We do n o t b e l i e v e a c t u a l n o t i c e must be p e r - s o n a l l y s e r v e d on t h e u n r e p r e s e n t e d p a r t y op- ponent. But w e do h o l d t h e r e p r e s e n t e d p a r t y must make a p o s i t i v e showing h e h a s a t t e m p t e d t o communicate a d e q u a t e n o t i c e t o t h e u n r e p r e - sented party. I f t h e r e p r e s e n t e d p a r t y can show he made a g o o d - f a i t h e f f o r t t o n o t i f y t h e u n r e p r e s e n t e d p a r t y and a d v i s e him h e should s u b s t i t u t e counsel o r appear i n person, and t h e n o t i c e a l s o s e t s f o r t h t h e d a t e of t h e n e x t h e a r i n g o r a c t i o n i n t h e m a t t e r pending, t h e n t h e r e p r e s e n t e d p a r t y w i l l be deemed t o have s a t i s f i e d t h e r e q u i s i t e s of s e c t i o n 93- 2104, R.C.M. 1947." 582 P.2d a t 1259. Here, a p p e l l a n t s w e r e s e r v e d w i t h a n o r d e r of t h e c o u r t r e q u i r i n g them t o do what t h e " n o t i c e " a s k s them t o do. In a d d i t i o n , t h e October 25, 1978 o r d e r was p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d on a p p e l l a n t s , even though i n M c P a r t l i n t h i s C o u r t deemed s u c h a s e r v i c e n o t r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e . The o r d e r of t h e c o u r t e x c e e d s i n i m p a c t t h e " n o t i c e " from opposing c o u n s e l where b o t h t h e n o t i c e and t h e o r d e r convey t h e same information. I n t h i s case, f u r t h e r n o t i c e of c o u n s e l would have been r e d u n d a n t and s e r v e no u s e f u l p u r p o s e . I n a r g u i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r of October 25, 1978, was i m p r o p e r l y s e r v e d s o a s t o r e t r o a c t i v e l y make v o i d a l l i n t e r v e n i n g p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e a f f i d a v i t of James Kraus, S r . , f i l e d on J a n u a r y 25, 1979, i n d i c a t e s t h a t he knew he was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . H e r e , a p p e l l a n t s had f u l l knowledge on J a n u a r y 25, 1979. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y had f u l l n o t i c e of t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r of t h a t d a t e g i v i n g them twenty d a y s t o f i l e answers t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . They c h o s e t o do nothing. Indeed, t h e y d i d n o t even move t h e c o u r t f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h a t o r d e r d u r i n g t h e twenty d a y s between t h e s e r v i c e of t h e o r d e r upon them and t h e s e r v i c e o f r e s p o n - d e n t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d e f a u l t judgment. They c h o s e n o t t o appear a t the t i m e set f o r hearing t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d e f a u l t judgment, even though r e s p o n d e n t ' s n o t i c e was s e r v e d upon them seven d a y s b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g r a t h e r t h a n merely t h e t h r e e d a y s r e q u i r e d by Rule 55, M.R.Civ.P. Following t h a t , they d i d nothing f o r over t h i r t y days a f t e r r e c e i p t from t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t of a n o t i c e of e n t r y of judg- ment, a p r o c e d u r a l c o u r t e s y n o t p r o v i d e d i n t h e c a s e o f " f i r s t appearance" d e f a u l t . They d i d n o t h i n g f o l l o w i n g t h e i r r e c e i p t of t h e c o u r t o r d e r a l l o w i n g t h e c l e r k t o r e l e a s e t h e i r monies t o r e s p o n d e n t . Under t h e s e circum- s t a n c e s , we can s e e no r e a s o n t o a f f o r d them t h e r e l i e f requested. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded r e s p o n d e n t $3,150 f o r a t t o r - ney f e e s where t h e amended c o m p l a i n t o n l y asked f o r $3,000. T h i s was n o t o b j e c t e d t o a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t l e v e l . Now on a p p e a l , a p p e l l a n t s o b j e c t t o t h e a d d i t i o n a l $150. A t the h e a r i n g on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d e f a u l t d a t e d March 1, 1979, r e s p o n d e n t ' s a t t o r n e y o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y t o i n d i c a t e t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e would b e $3,150. I n view of t h i s f a c t w e f i n d no r e a s o n t o r e d u c e t h e amount awarded a s being excessive. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d w i t h t h e a d d i t u r of $150 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r d e f e n d i n g t h e same. We concur: Chief Justice P ~ J & Justices