specially concurring.
¶12 I concur in the result the Court reaches. I do not agree with everything in the Court’s opinion.
¶13 The Court states the issue as whether justice courts have jurisdiction to review judgments for procedural due process errors *484after the thirty days for setting aside judgments have elapsed under Rule 22A, M.J.C.C.R.Civ.P. The Court correctly concludes justice courts do not have such jurisdiction and, consequently, affirms the District Court.
¶14 At the close of its opinion, however, the Court goes well beyond the issue presented and the legal analysis necessary to resolve that issue. Indeed, it gives legal advice to a private party-one represented by counsel, no less-about another “remedy” available for collaterally attacking the justice court judgment. It is my view that we have no business giving such advice to parties in a legal action. The Court’s opinion should end after its recitation of Rule 22A and its conclusion that neither the justice court nor the District Court erred.