I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
MURLAND W . SEARIGHT and
V I R G I N I A SEARIGHT,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
-vs-
MICHAEL C I M I N O ,
=. .
D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . ,
- ;
APPEAL FROK: ~ i s t r i c t o u r t of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ; :
C L-'
I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of F l a t h e a d ,
T h e H o n o r a b l e L e i f E r i c k s o n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . '
COUNSEL O F RECORD: 62
For Appellant:
M u r l a n d W. S e a r i g h t , ~ o l u m b i aF a l l s , Montana
For R e s p o n d e n t :
J a m e s C . B a r t l e t t ; H a s h , 0 ' ~ r i e n& B a r t l e t t ,
K a l i s p e l l , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on ~ r i e f s : J u n e 8 , 1 9 8 9
Decided: July 19, 1989
Filed:
- - I -
/ Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
The S e a r i g h t s a p p e a l from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f o r t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d County, d e n y i n g
their motion to vacate judgment and imposing sanctions
against t h e defendant, M r . Cimino. We affirm the D i s t r i c t
Court's denial of the motion, and further assess damages
a g a i n s t t h e a p p e l l a n t s p u r s u a n t t o Rule 3 2 , M. R.App. P . , for
the filing of an appeal without substantial o r reasonable
grounds.
The S e a r i g h t s p r e s e n t s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r o u r r e v i e w b u t
we f i n d it n e c e s s a r y o n l y t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e
D i s t r i c t Court properly denied a p p e l l a n t s ' motion t o v a c a t e
judgment and impose s a n c t i o n s . Because we answer t h i s q u e s -
t i o n a f f i r m a t i v e l y , we w i l l n o t d i s c u s s t h e remaining i s s u e s
r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t s .
This case has a lengthy history. The S e a r i g h t s i n i t i a t -
ed a cause o f a c t i o n a g a i n s t M r . Cimino i n 1981, s e e k i n g t o
e n f o r c e t h e terms o f a c o n t r a c t f o r deed r e q u i r i n g M r . Cimino
to pay half the cost of an airstrip constructed on the
Searights' land. On May 1 4 , 1 9 8 5 , judgment was e n t e r e d i n
favor of the Searights, and on a p p e a l t h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d .
Searight v. Cimino (1986), 718 P.2d 652, 43 S t . R e p . 810.
Mr. Cimino then sought to enforce the terms of the
c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d g r a n t i n g him t h e r i g h t t o u s e t h e a i r s t r i p .
In July of 1986, h e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o c a u s e a p p e l l a n t s t o
e x e c u t e a n a i r p o r t e a s e m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7 0 , M.R.Civ.P.,
which p r o v i d e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t :
I f a judgment d i r e c t s a p a r t y t o e x e c u t e a convey-
a n c e o f l a n d o r t o d e l i v e r d e e d s o r o t h e r documents
o r t o p e r f o r m a n y o t h e r s p e c i f i c a c t and t h e p a r t y
f a i l s t o comply w i t h i n t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d , t h e
c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e a c t t o be done a t t h e c o s t o f
the disobedient party by some other person
a p p o i n t e d by t h e c o u r t and t h e a c t when s o done h a s
l i k e e f f e c t a s i f done by t h e p a r t y .
The S e a r i g h t s r e s i s t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n , a r g u i n g t h a t
t h e p r e v i o u s judgment e n t e r e d d i d n o t c o n t a i n any r e f e r e n c e
t o a n e a s e m e n t which c o u l d b e e n f o r c e d by i n v o k i n g R u l e 7 0 ,
M. R.Civ. P . The S e a r i g h t s acknowledged d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o
use t h e a i r s t r i p a s set f o r t h i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed, b u t
a r g u e d t h a t t h e g r a n t i n g o f an e a s e m e n t was n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d
e i t h e r by t h e c o n t r a c t o r by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment s o
t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s motion should be dismissed. The S e a r i g h t s
a l s o requested sanctions against M r . Cimino u n d e r Rule 11,
M.R.Civ.P.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o c a u s e
the execution of the easement, and ruled that a written
easement needed t o b e p r e p a r e d and r e c o r d e d . Following a
l a t e r hearing on the Searights' motion for sanctions, the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t a n e a s e m e n t had been p r e p a r e d and
r e c o r d e d by t h e S e a r i g h t s ' a t t o r n e y . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found
t h a t t h e m o t i o n f o r s a n c t i o n s " a p p e a r s t o be h a r a s s m e n t on
Mr. Searight's part." The c o u r t d e n i e d s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t M r .
Cimino, and on i t s own m o t i o n , imposed s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e
S e a r i g h t s o f $100.
The S e a r i g h t s t h e n f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend t h e
judgment, a r g u i n g t h a t R u l e 7 0 , M.R.Civ.P., was i n a p p r o p r i a t e
t o e n f o r c e a judgment g r a n t i n g a n e a s e m e n t which n e v e r e x i s t -
ed. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n , reasoning t h a t :
The t h r u s t o f P l a i n t i f f s ' argument i s t o
r e l i t i g a t e t h e i s s u e o f easement. Since p l a i n t i f f s
h a v e a l r e a d y s i g n e d and r e c o r d e d t h e e a s e m e n t t h e
p o i n t i s moot.
On a p p e a l , t h i s C o u r t r e f u s e d t o d i s t u r b t h e a c t i o n s o f
t h e p a r t i e s i n p u t t i n g t h e e a s e m e n t on r e c o r d . Searight v.
Cimino (Mont. 1988), 748 P.2d 948, 45 St.Rep. 46. This
c o n c l u s i o n was r e a c h e d b a s e d upon t h e a b s e n c e o f a r e c o r d o f
t h e h e a r i n g on M r . C i m i n o ' s m o t i o n t o r e q u i r e e x e c u t i o n o f a n
easement, and t h e a b s e n c e o f p r o o f o f w h e t h e r a n o r d e r was
i s s u e d o r whether the parties were s i m p l y t o l d t o work i t
out. This Court also affirmed the levying of sanctions
against the Searights, b u t r e f u s e d t o award damages for a
f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l u n d e r R u l e 32, M.R.App.P. 748 P.2d a t 952.
On March 1 0 , 1989, a f t e r a p p o i n t i n g h i m s e l f a s c o u n s e l ,
Mr. Searight f i l e d a motion t o v a c a t e judgment a n d impose
s a n c t i o n s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The m o t i o n r e q u e s t e d t h a t
the court, pursuant to i t s a u t h o r i t y under Rule 12 ( h ) ( 3 ) ,
M.R.Civ.P., and R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P., vacate a l l orders,
d e c r e e s , and judgments e n t e r e d i n t h e a c t i o n a r i s i n g from M r .
Cimino's motion to cause a p p e l l a n t s t o execute an airport
easement. Mr. S e a r i g h t contended that the D i s t r i c t Court
l o s t 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 o f t h e c a s e a f t e r e n t r y and
s a t i s f a c t i o n of i t s f i n a l judgment i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n and
had no power to order the granting of an easement. Mr.
S e a r i g h t a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t s a n c t i o n s b e imposed a g a i n s t M r .
Cimino p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 11, M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t
summarily d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n . I t i s from t h i s d e n i a l t h a t t h e
Searights appeal.
I
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y deny a p p e l l a n t s ' m o t i o n
t o v a c a t e judgment and impose s a n c t i o n s ?
A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was w i t h o u t
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 t o h e a r and determine t h e ease-
ment i s s u e b e c a u s e f i n a l judgment had been r e n d e r e d i n t h e
p r i o r d e c i s i o n a n d t h a t judgment i n c l u d e d no r e f e r e n c e t o a n
easement which could have been enforced under Rule 70,
M.R.Civ.P.
A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t a l l o r d e r s and judgments r e n d e r e d
a s t o t h e e a s e m e n t i s s u e must be v a c a t e d , c i t i n g Crawford v .
Pierse ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 56 Mont. 371, 375-76, 185 P. 315, 317-18:
I t i s e l e m e n t a r y t h a t when t h e j u d g m e n t - r o l l upon
i t s f a c e shows t h a t t h e c o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c -
t i o n t o r e n d e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r judgment, i t s p r o -
nouncement i s i n f a c t no judgment. I t c a n n o t be
enforced. No r i g h t c a n b e d e r i v e d from i t . All
p r o c e e d i n g s founded upon i t a r e i n v a l i d and i n e f -
f e c t i v e f o r any purpose. . . . An a f f i r m a n c e of
s u c h a judgment on a p p e a l c a n n o t make it v a l i d .
(citations omitted).
In response, Mr. Cimino argues that appellants are
m e r e l y a t t e m p t i n g t o r e l i t i g a t e t h e e a s e m e n t i s s u e , and t h a t
because they have already had the opportunity to raise a
jurisdictional challenge, the doctrine of res judicata ap-
p l i e s t o preclude further l i t i g a t i o n of t h i s matter, citing
Wellman v . Wellman ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 198 Mont. 42, 643 P.2d 573:
Once t h e r e h a s b e e n f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t an
i s s u e f o r j u d i c i a l decision- i n a given proceeding,
including those issues t h a t pertain - - c o u r t ' s to a
jurisdiction, the determination of t h e court i n
t h a t p r o c e e d i n g must b e a c c o r d e d f i n a l i t y a s t o a l l
i s s u e s r a i s e d o r which f a i r l v c o u l d have been
r a i s e d , e l s e judgments m i g h t b g a t t a c k e d p i e c e m e a l
and w i t h o u t e n d . ( ~ m ~ h a ssupplied)
is .
643 P.2d a t 575, c i t i n g Royal Coachman C o l o r Guard v . Marine
Trading (Me. 1 9 7 9 ) , 398 A.2d 382, 384.
Contrary to appellants' contentions that Wellman is
d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e we c o n c l u d e t h a t it c o n t r o l s . I n Wellman,
a p p e l l a n t s a t t e m p t e d t o a t t a c k a judgment r e n d e r e d t e n y e a r s
prior to the appeal, contending that the District Court
exceeded its jurisdiction by g r a n t i n g more r e l i e f t h a n was
sought in the pleadings. In affirming the lower court's
d i s m i s s a l , t h i s Court s a i d :
P l a i n t i f f s had a f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o l i t i g a t e t h e
v o i d n e s s i s s u e i n 1971 when t h e y f i r s t moved t o s e t
a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. They f a i l e d t o d o s o .
The d o c t r i n e o f res j u d i c a t a i s founded upon t h e
g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d p u b l i c p o l i c y t h a t t h e r e must
be some end t o l i t i g a t i o n . The end f o r t h e p l a i n -
t i f f s i n t h i s c a s e o c c u r r e d more t h a n t e n y e a r s a g o
when t h e y f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n
and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e i r f i r s t m o t i o n t o
s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment.
I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , a p p e l l a n t s had t h e same o p p o r t u n i t y
t o r a i s e t h e v o i d n e s s i s s u e when M r . Cimino f i r s t f i l e d h i s
m o t i o n t o c a u s e e x e c u t i o n o f an a i r p o r t e a s e m e n t . They d i d
i n f a c t o b j e c t t o t h e District Court's a b i l i t y t o enforce an
e a s e m e n t u n d e r R u l e 70, M.R.Civ.P., i n t h e i r motion t o a l t e r
o r amend t h e judgment following d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e easement
issue. They f u r t h e r r a i s e d t h e s p e c i f i c i s s u e of l a c k of
subject matter jurisdiction i n t h e i r P e t i t i o n f o r Rehearing
a f t e r t h i s Court's opinion i n the matter. Because t h e sub-
stance of appellants' challenge to the District Court's
a c t i o n s h a s r e m a i n e d t h e same, it i s a p p a r e n t t h e y a r e m e r e l y
attempting to relitigate issues which have already been
d e c i d e d by i n v o k i n g d i f f e r e n t l a b e l s by which t o c o n t e s t t h e
p r o c e e d i n g s , one o f which i s 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 . We
w i l l not allow appellants' characterization of t h e i r claim t o
h i n d e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f res j u d i c a t a , and t h e
prevention of protracted l i t i g a t i o n .
Furthermore, t h e District C o u r t ' s handling of t h e ease-
ment i s s u e was c o m p e l l e d by t h e a c t i o n s o f the appellants
themselves. While i t i s n o t c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d w h e t h e r
t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d an easement be g r a n t e d o r t o l d t h e
parties to "work it out," the District Court's findings
indicate that appellants were uncooperative and that Mr.
C i m i n o ' s a t t o r n e y was l e f t w i t h t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s :
(a) to do nothing and have this matter con-
tinue indefinitely without resolution;
(b) to breach the Code of Professional Re-
sponsibility and communicate directly with Mr.
Searight; or
(c) to seek relief through the Court.
The District Court found that Mr. Cimino's attorney chose the
only alternative that was reasonably available to him, name-
ly, to file a motion asking the court to compel an easement
be drawn and recorded.
Even if the relief sought by Mr. Cimino was beyond the
scope of the original pleadings in the first proceeding, we
hold that a jurisdictional challenge to the court's actions
will nevertheless be barred by the doctrine of res judicata
under this Court's holding in Wellman. We affirm the Dis-
trict Court's order denying appellants' motion to vacate and
impose sanctions. Because we conclude that this appeal is
taken without substantial or reasonable grounds and that
appellants are merely attempting to relitigate the easement
issue, we impose damages in the amount of $500 pursuant to
Rule 32, M.R.App.P.
Affirmed.