No. 81-304
1N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
PATRICIA A. REX,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
and
CALVIN T. REX,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula
Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presidinq.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Morales, Volinkaty & Harr, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent :
Anthony Keast, Kissoula, Montana
Submitted on briefs: June 24, 1982
Decided: Ailgust 11, 1982
AtJt; 1 i 1582
Filed-
!.
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 o f
the Court.
Husband appeals from an order dated September 24,
1 9 8 0 , which imposed a s a n c t i o n o f $400 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s t o
b e p a i d by him t o w i f e ' s c o u n s e l a s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t t o
setting aside a default entered a g a i n s t him on A u g u s t 4,
1980.
Two issues are presented to this Court: First,
whether t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d i n a t i m e l y m a n n e r ;
secondly, whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n
in imposing a sanction of attorney fees as a condition
precedent t o s e t t i n g aside the default.
On A u g u s t 4, 1 9 8 0 , h e a r i n g was h e l d by t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t on two c o n s o l i d a t e d m o t i o n s o f f e r e d by r e s p o n d e n t w i f e
that requested the District Court (1) t o hold appellant
husband i n contempt o f c o u r t f o r a r r e a r a g e i n c h i l d s u p p o r t
p a y m e n t s and ( 2 ) t o amend a p r i o r s u p p o r t o r d e r nunc p r o
tunc t o r e f l e c t appellant father's responsibility for the
c h i l d r e n ' s m e d i c a l d e d u c t i b l e s and a n y m e d i c a l c o s t s e x c e e d -
ing the insurance coverage provided by the father's em-
ployer. A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t a p p e a r e i t h e r p e r s o n a l l y o r by
counsel. No c o n t i n u a n c e had b e e n o b t a i n e d by a p p e l l a n t .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e a r d and g r a n t e d t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d
motions, defaulting appellant f o r f a i l u r e t o appear. Later
t h a t day, appellant's c o u n s e l moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o
set aside the default. T h i s m o t i o n was a r g u e d on A u g u s t 1 8 ,
1980. Appellant's c o u n s e l c o n t e n d e d t h a t l o c a l custom and
professional courtesy required the District Court and
o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l t o make i n q u i r y i n t o a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l ' s
a b s e n c e f r o m law and m o t i o n p r i o r t o a l l o w i n g d e f a u l t t o b e
taken. Appellant's counsel a l s o argued excusable n e g l e c t
b a s e d upon numerous i n f o r m a l a t t e m p t s he had t a k e n t o o b t a i n
a continuance.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o o k t h e m a t t e r under advisement
a n d , on S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 8 0 , handed down a n o r d e r w h i c h enun-
c i a t e d t h a t l o c a l custom p r o v i d e d for contacting attorneys
t o remind them of h e a r i n g s i n which o n l y l e g a l m a t t e r s would
be d e c i d e d and n o t i n i n s t a n c e s w h e r e f a c t u a l m a t t e r s would
be c o n t e s t e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d f i n d e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t
but required appellant to pay $400 in attorney fees to
respondent 's counsel as a condition precedent to setting
a s i d e of t h e d e f a u l t . I t is f r o m t h i s o r d e r t h a t a p p e l l a n t
appeals. N o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d on J u n e 2 , 1 9 8 1 .
T h i s C o u r t may c o n s i d e r a m a t t e r on a p p e a l o n l y when
appeal is t a k e n p u r s u a n t t o t h e Montana R u l e s of A p p e l l a t e
C i v i l Procedure. R u l e 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., confers jurisdic-
t i o n upon t h i s Court t o hear an a p p e a l i n s p e c i f i c c a s e s ,
which include "a final judgment entered in an action or
s p e c i a l p r o c e e d i n g commenced i n a d i s t r i c t c o u r t " and " f r o m
a n y s p e c i a l o r d e r made after final judgment." An appeal
f r o m a n y s p e c i a l o r d e r made a f t e r f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n c l u d e s a n
order setting aside or refusing to vacate a default
judgment. S t a t e ex rel. D e c k v. D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 64
Mont. 1 1 0 , 1 1 2 , 207 P. 1004, 1005. R u l e 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P.,
requires that notice of a p p e a l must t h e n be filed within
t h i r t y d a y s of e n t r y of judgment o r o r d e r o r w i t h i n t h i r t y
d a y s of s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r when
n o t i c e i s s o r e q u i r e d by R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , I4.R.Civ.P. Such n o t i c e
of e n t r y of judgment is r e q u i r e d t o be s e r v e d a f t e r e n t r y o f
judgment o r o r d e r t o " e a c h p a r t y who i s n o t i n d e f a u l t f o r
f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r " and i s t o b e t h e n n o t e d i n t h e docket.
R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , t4.R.Civ.P.
In the instant case, a careful examination of the
District Court file reveals that no final judgment was
entered after t h e August 4, 1980, default. Nor was the
order entered on September 23, 1980, a final order. No
s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r was made t o
either appellant or respondent in relation to either the
d e f a u l t of August 4, 1980, or the order of September 23,
1980. T h i s C o u r t d o e s n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s m a t t e r .
U n t i l f i n a l judgment is e n t e r e d , any a p p e a l is p r e m a t u r e .
Dismissed w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n .
g k 4 agwd*
Chief J u s t i c e
We concur: