No. 80-239
I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
H F F OTN
1981
I N THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE O F
FRANCIS A. GORDON, a / k / a
FRANCIS GORDON, a p r o t e c t e d p e r s o n .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h 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 B e a v e r h e a d , The Honorable
Frank B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
Hooks a n d Budewitz, Townsend, Montana
F o r Respondent :
R i c h a r d J. L l e w e l l y n , H e l e n a , Montana
W. G. G i l b e r t , 111, D i l l o n , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : March 25, 1 9 8 1
Decided : Jubl 4 1981
Filed : dy# 4 198;
Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This case involves appeals by all parties involved in
these proceedings. Albert and Emily Gordon, parents of
Francis Gordon and one time conservators of his estate,
appeal from a finding and order of contempt entered by the
Beaverhead County District Court (Gordon appeal). An
attorney, W. G. Gilbert 111, acting in behalf of Francis
Gordon, appeals the court's order of a new trial to
redetermine the amount of attorney fees due from his
representation of Francis Gordon (Gilbert appeal). A third
appeal has been filed by Richard Llewellyn, the current
conservator of Francis Gordon's estate. This appeal is
explained in the conservator's brief as being brought in
opposition to the order for a new trial regarding Gilbert's
attorney fees and in support of the court's contempt order.
In 1976 Albert and Emily Gordon were appointed by the
District Court to act as conservators of the estate of their
son, Francis Gordon. In March 1978 Francis Gordon
petitioned the District Court and demanded that Albert and
Emily, as conservators, file a sworn accounting showing all
receipts and disbursements of the conservatorship. Albert
and Emily failed to appear at the hearing on the petition
whereupon the court ordered the accounting be filed within
ten days and that the conservators appear before the court
and show cause why they should not be removed from their
position.
A show cause hearing was held on July 25, 1978.
Subsequently, the District Court, on September 26, 1978,
entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order
removing Albert and Emily as conservators. The court
further ordered t h e Gordons t o f i l e a full, complete and
accurate accounting of all monies received during their
conservatorship; to pay the clerk of the court (interim
conservator) within ten days certain sums of money
i m p r o p e r l y w i t h h e l d from o r c h a r g e d t o F r a n c i s Gordon; and
t o pay attorney fees t o W. G. Gilbert 111, a t t o r n e y for
F r a n c i s Gordon. The amount of attorney f e e s were t o be
determined a t a l a t e r hearing.
On December 18, 1978, Gilbert filed two claims
against the estate of Francis Gordon for legal services
rendered and expenses incurred in the representation of
F r a n c i s Gordon. These c l a i m s t o t a l e d $4,721.17. Failing t o
h a v e t h e c l a i m s s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s , G i l b e r t f i l e d a.
motion on J u n e 18, 1979, to compel payment by t h e newly
appointed temporary c o n s e r v a t o r , I r e n e Newlon. H e a r i n g on
t h e m o t i o n was s c h e d u l e d f o r J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 , and t h e c o u r t
d i r e c t e d t h a t n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g be g i v e n t o A l b e r t and
Emily Gordon. A copy o f t h e m o t i o n t o compel and o r d e r
d i r e c t i n g n o t i c e t o be g i v e n w e r e d u l y s e r v e d on J u n e 1 9 ,
1979.
A t t h e scheduled h e a r i n g , G i l b e r t appeared p e r s o n a l l y
and I r e n e N e w l o n ' s a t t o r n e y a p p e a r e d on h e r b e h a l f . Neither
t h e Gordons nor their attorney made an appearance. The
p a r t i e s present a t the hearing did not question or contest
the claim for attorney fees. As a. r e s u l t , the District
C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on J u l y 1 7 , 1 9 7 9 , a p p r o v i n g G i l b e r t ' s
c l a i m and d i r e c t i n g t h e c o n s e r v a t o r t o o b t a i n t h e m o n i e s f o r
payment from A l b e r t and Emily Gordon i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h i t s
o r d e r of September 26, 1978. A n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment
was p r e p a r e d , signed and f i l e d by G i l b e r t . On J u l y 25,
1 9 7 9 , t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t s e r v e d by m a i l t h e n o t i c e and a
copy of the order on all parties, including Albert and
Emily Gordon.
R i c h a r d L l e w e l l y n was appointed special conservator
o f t h e e s t a t e of F r a n c i s Gordon i n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 9 . In early
J a n u a r y 1 9 8 0 , he f i l e d a p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h a t A l b e r t and
Emily Gordon b e h e l d i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t f o r t h e i r a l l e g e d
failure to comply with the District Court's order of
September 26, 1978. An o r d e r t o show c a u s e was d u l y i s s u e d
t o t h e G o r d o n s and their current a t t o r n e y of record. In
response t o t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e G o r d o n s , on J a n u a r y 3 1 , 1 9 8 0 ,
f i l e d a n o t i o n t o quash the order t o show c a u s e . At the
same t i m e , t h e y f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l w i t h r e s p e c t
t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of J u l y 1 7 , 1979, wherein t h e
c o u r t upheld G i l b e r t ' s c l a i m f o r $4,721.17 in attorney fees.
A hearing on t h e m o t i o n s was held on F e b r u a r y 26,
1980. On March 1 3 , 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted the
G o r d o n s ' m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l and e n t e r e d a n o r d e r s e t t i n g
aside the award of attorney fees t o Gilbert. The court
s t a t e d t h e award was t o be v a c a t e d b e c a u s e t h e judgment was
rendered under a "mistake of fact, inadvertence and
excusable n e g l e c t i n t h e absence of s a i d former c o n s e r v a t o r s
[Albert and Emily Gordon] . . . and because of a frail
notice to them scarcely advising them of anything to be
h e a r d e x c e p t 'payment o f b i l l s . ' "
On A p r i l 8 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e t r i a l j u d g e h e l d t h e G o r d o n s i n
contempt of court for f a i l i n g t o comply w i t h i t s S e p t e m b e r
26, 1978, o r d e r . The c o u r t f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d t h e G o r d o n s t o
pay $ 6 , 8 5 8 . 9 0 t o t h e clerk of the c o u r t i n accordance with
the September 1978 order. From these orders, Gilbert,
L l e w e l l y n and t h e Gordons a p p e a l .
Concerning the "Gilbert" appeal, the sole issue
r a i s e d is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e
m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . I n t h i s regard, G i l b e r t contends
t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r b e c a u s e t h e G o r d o n s , i n b r i n g i n g t h e
m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l , f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 5 9 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.:
"Time f o r m o t i o n . A m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l
s h a l l be s e r v e d n o t l a t e r t h a n 10 d a y s a f t e r
service of notice of the e n t r y of the
judgment " .
Here, the notice of entry of judgment, although
p r e p a r e d and s i g n e d by G i l b e r t , was s e r v e d on t h e Gordons by
t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t on J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 7 9 . The m o t i o n f o r a
new trial, however, was not filed or s e r v e d on o p p o s i n g
counsel until January 1980, some six months later.
Certainly, this period is far in excess of the rule
l i m i t a t i o n of t e n d a y s .
The Gordons c o n t e n d t h e i r m o t i o n was t i m e l y filed.
In support of t h i s contention, they argue t h a t since G i l b e r t
p r e p a r e d , s i g n e d and g a v e t h e n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment t o
the clerk for service, t h e n o t i c e i s d e f i c i e n t and c a n n o t
s e r v e t o s t a r t t h e l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d c o n t a i n e d i n Rule 59,
M.R.Civ.P. W e must d i s a g r e e .
T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t i n t h e Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l
P r o c e d u r e t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment b e s i g n e d by
t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t o r t h a t t h e n o t i c e be p r e p a r e d and
g i v e n t o t h e c l e r k by t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " a s a s s e r t e d by
t h e Gordons i n t h e i r b r i e f . The o n l y r e q u i r e m e n t i s t h a t
upon e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r o r judgment by t h e c o u r t , t h e c l e r k
s h a l l s e r v e by m a i l n o t i c e o f t h e e n t r y upon e a c h p a r t y t o
t h e proceeding and s h a l l make n o t e in t h e docket of the
mailing. S e e Rule 77 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. T h i s r e q u i r e m e n t was
satisfied, and we find no deficiencies in the notice
r e c e i v e d by t h e G o r d o n s .
This Court has s t r i c t l y enforced t h e time l i m i t a t i o n s
s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 5 9 , M.R.Civ.P. S e e P i e r c e P a c k i n g Company
v. D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District
-SQ-l 1 Se9 1
( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 5 0 , 579 P.2d 760; K e l l y v . Ehe3+ & he4A
Paint Contractors (1978), 1 7 5 Mont. 440, 574 P.2d 1002;
A r m s t r o n g v . High C r e s t O i l , I n c . ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 1 8 7 , 520
P.2d 1081. W will
e not disregard those requirements and
m u s t now f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e
G o r d o n s l m o t i o n and o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l .
I n r e g a r d t o t h e Gordon a p p e a l , w e n o t e t h a t i t is
solely the r e s u l t of the April 1980 judgment finding the
Gordons i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o a b i d e by t h e d i r e c t i v e s
o f a c o u r t o r d e r e n t e r e d on S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 7 8 . I n defense
o f t h e c o n t e m p t c h a r g e , A l b e r t and Emily Gordon c o n t e n d t h a t
c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made
i n conjunction with the p r i o r court order a r e not supported
by substantial credible evidence. The Gordons further
a s s e r t t h a t d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n , t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r v a r i o u s a g r e e m e n t s which
p u r p o r t e d t o r e l e a s e a l l r i g h t s , c l a i m s and c a u s e s o f a c t i o n
F r a n c i s Gordon had a g a i n s t them. The Gordons t h e n c o n c l u d e
that the contempt order should not have issued and this
C o u r t s h o u l d now m o d i f y t h a t o r d e r and t h e September 26,
1978, o r d e r s o a s t o be i n accordance with t h e submitted
record.
W acknowledge t h e Gordons'
e c o n t e n t i o n s but conclude
t h a t t h e y h a v e been i m p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l . Section
3-1-523, MCA, is p e r t i n e n t i n t h i s r e g a r d and s p e c i f i c a l l y
provides:
"Judgment and o r d e r s i n c o n t e m p t cases f i n a l .
The judgment and o r d e r s o f t h e c o u r t o r j u d q e - -
made i n c a s e s o f c o n t e m p t a r e f i n a l and
conclusive. T h e r e i s no a p p e a l , b u t t h e
a c t i o n s o f a d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r j u d g e c a n be
r e v i e w e d on a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i b y t h e
s u p r e m e c o u r t o r a j u d g e t h e r e o f and t h e
a c t i o n of a j u s t i c e of t h e peace o r o t h e r
c o u r t of l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t o r j u d g e o f t h e c o u n t y i n which s u c h
j u s t i c e or judge of such c o u r t of l i m i t e d
jurisdiction resides."
If the Gordons wish this Court to consider the
propriety of the District Court's action regarding the
c o n t e m p t p r o c e e d i n g s and t o r e v i e w a n y u n d e r l y i n g s u p p o r t i v e
findings, conclusions or orders, it w i l l be necessary to
f i l e an a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t of review.
For the reasons stated herein the Gordon appeal,
challenging the District Court's order of contempt, is
dismissed. Furthermore, t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e Gordons a
new t r i a l is v a c a t e d , and t h e judgment e n t e r e d on J u l y 1 7 ,
1979, approving Gilbert's claim f// r
g attorney fees is
a f f irmed.
J
W e concur: