No. 12811
I N THE SU1W2ME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
197 5
lUMP IMPLEMENT COMPANY,
a c o r p o r a t i o n , T O A J.
HMS
KAMP and FENNA H. KAMP,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
-vs -
AMSTERDAM LUMBER, I N C .,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Edward D u s s a u l t , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
,2ounsel o f Record :
For Appellants :
B e n n e t t and B e n n e t t , Bozeman, Montana
Lyman H. B e n n e t t Jr. a r g u e d and Lyman B e n n e t t , I11
a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
F o r Respondent:
k
D r y s d a l e , M c l e a n and S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana
James A . M , l e a n a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
c
submitted: March 5 , 1975
Decided : WPR '1 0 1975
Filed :
&ypR u (jib
Br. J u s L i c e Idesley " a s ~ l e sd e l i v e r e d t h e 3 p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a p p e a l i s from a n o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e Hon. Edward
l
'
. 3 u s s a u l t , s i t t i n g i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County,
c o n f i r m i n g a judgment e n t e r e d by Hon. J a c k D . S h a n s t r o m , d a t e d
July 2 5 , 1 9 7 3 , i n f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t Amsterdam Lumber, I n c . , and
a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f s Kamp Implement Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , Thomas
J . Kamp and Fenna H . Kamp ( h e r e i n a f t e r c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o
a s Yarnp). I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o f c o n f i r m i n g t h a t judgment, a p p e l -
l a n t s r e q u e s t a new t r i a l .
The m a t e r i a l s e q u e n c e of e v e n t s l e a d i n g t o t h e i n s t a n t
as cioii was:
O c t o b e r 29, 1971: Amsterdam Lumber f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n
G a l L a t i n County d i s t r i c t c o u r t , c a u s e number 19818. Basically
t h e complaint prayed f o r f o r e c l o s u r e of a mechanics' l i e n and
f o r t h e b a l a n c e o f moneys owned o n a s t e e l b u i l d i n g s o l d t o Kamp
by Amsterdam Lumber.
October 30, 1971: Thomas J . Kamp and Kamp Implement Com-
pdny w e r e s e r v e d w i t h summons and c o m p l a i n t .
November 2 , 1971: Fenna H . Kamp was s e r v e d w i t h summons
and z o m p l a i n t .
F e b r u a r y 28, 1972: A f t e r e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e
court, Hon. W. W. L e s s l e y e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t Kamp
and f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d f o r f o r e c l o s u r e by s a l e o f t h e p r o p e r t y upon
h n i c h t h e l i e n was f i l e d . No a p p e a r a n c e was e v e r e n t e r e d by Kamp.
March 8 , 1972: Kamp f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e
deiault.
March 2 2 , 1972: A f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n , J u d g e
!,essley i s s u e d an o r d e r denying t h e motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t .
March 31, 1972: Kamp i n s t i t u t e d t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n ,
G a l l a t i n County c a u s e number 20055, s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t
judgment i n c a u s e number 19818 on t h e b a s i s t h a t f r a u d had
been committed i n t h a t Amsterdam Lumber f a i l e d t o a d v i s e t h e
court :
a) T h a t t h e p r o p e r t y upon which t h e l i e n was f i l e d was
n o t t h e p r o p e r t y upon which t h e b u i l d i n g was c o n s t r u c t e d ;
b) of c e r t a i n b u s i n e s s t r a n s a c t i o n s between t h e p a r t i e s ;
c) t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g was d e f e c t i v e ; and
d) of t h e d i s a b i l i t y of Thomas J . Kamp b e c a u s e of a h e a r t
condition.
Events p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s appeal occurring a f t e r t h e f i l i n g
o f t h e c o m p l a i n t i n G a l l a t i n County c a u s e number 20055 and t h r o u g h
t h e t i m e of t h i s C o u r t ' s opinion i n t h e c a s e , S t a t e ex r e l .
Amsterdam Lumber, I n c . v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 163 Mont. 1 8 2 , 516 P.2d
378, 379-381, 383, 30 St.Rep. 1018, a r e r e c i t e d t h e r e i n .
These e v e n t s , m a t e r i a l t o o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , o c c u r r e d
subsequent t o t h e C o u r t ' s opinion:
A p r i l 25, 1974: Hon. Edward T . D u s s a u l t assumed j u r i s -
diction.
J u n e 1 4 , 1974: A h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e J u d g e D u s s a u l t .
J u n e 2 4 , 1974: J u d g e D u s s a u l t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t
and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , c o n c l u d i n g " t h a t by r e a s o n of t h e p r e s e n t
s i t u a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s c a s e , t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d make
and e n t e r a n a p p e a l a b l e O r d e r " . H e t h e n o r d e r e d Judge B l a i r ' s
o r d e r , d a t e d September 2 1 , 1973, s e t a s i d e a s v o i d ; c o n f i r m e d
t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w of J u d g e Shanstrom
d a t e d J u l y 11, 1973; c o n f i r m e d t h e judgment o f J u d g e Shanstrom
d a t e d J u l y 25, 1973; a n d , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , o r d e r e d a new t r i a l .
Kamp on a p p e a l p r e s e n t s f i v e i s s u e s :
(1) Did J u d g e D u s s a u l t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make t h e
o r d e r d a t e d J u n e 2 4 , 1974?
(2) I s t h e judgment e n t e r e d by J u d g e B l a i r on O c t o b e r 1,
1 9 7 3 , a v a l i d judgment?
(3) I s t h i s c a s e moot on t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
s e c t i o n 58-423, R.C.M. 1947?
(4) Did J u d g e S h a n s t r o m err i n e n t e r i n g h i s o r d e r
nunc p r o t u n c , d a t e d J u l y 11, 1973?
(5) Is t h e r e sub s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t a
judgment i n f a v o r o f Kamp?
Mamp's i s s u e s 2 a n d 3 were d e t e r m i n e d i n t h i s C o u r t ' s
o p i n i o n i n S t a t e e x r e l . Amsterdam Lumber, I n c . v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
1 6 3 Mont. 1 8 2 , 516 P.2d 378, 381, 30 S t . R e p . 1 0 1 8 , i n t h i s manner:
"The s e c o n d i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e i s s u e s p e t i t i o n e r
r a i s e s i n t h i s C o u r t a r e moot. Mootness h e r e i s
bottomed on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e judgment e n t e r e d
by J u d g e B l a i r . F o r r e a s o n s t h a t w i l l a p p e a r i n
o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e f i n a l i s s u e , t h a t judgment
i s v o i d a n d o f no f o r c e and e f f e c t . Hence it
c o u l d n o t b e s a t i s f i e d by d e p o s i t a n d n o t i c e and
t h e i s s u e s p u r p o r t e d l y concluded t h e r e b y remain f o r
adjudication."
The l a w w i t h r e s p e c t t o i s s u e s 2 and 3 was w e l l s t a t e d by
t h i s C o u r t i n Anderson v . B o r d e r , 87 Mont. 4 , 8 , 285 P . 174:
"The g r e a ter p o r t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t I s e x h a u s t i v e
b r i e f i s devoted t o a n attempt t o demonstrate
t h a t our former o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s erroneous,
b u t t h e s h o r t answer i s t h a t a s t o a l l p o i n t s
which were d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n , and were p a s s e d
upon, i n t h e f o r m e r a p p e a l , and which a r e i n v o l v e d
i n t h i s c a s e , w h e t h e r t h e o p i n i o n i s r i g h t o r wrong, it
i s t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , was b i n d i n g upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t ,
and i s b i n d i n g upon u s . "
S e e : L i b i n v . H u f f i n e , 124 Mont. 361, 364, 224 P.2d 1 4 4 ; C e n t r a l
Montana S t o c k y a r d s v.. F r a s e r , 1 3 3 Mont. 1 6 8 , 1 8 7 , 320 P.2d 981; G a f f n e y
v . I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t B o a r d , 133 Mont. 448, 450, 324 P.2d 1 0 6 3 .
While Kamp was n o t a named p a r t y i n o u r S t a t e e x r e l . A m s t e r d a m
Lumber d e c i s i o n , it was, however, c e r t a i n l y o n e o f t h e r e a l p a r t i e s i n
interest. The a t t o r n e y s r e p r e s e n t i n g Kamp i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w e r e
t h e same a t t o r n e y s r e p r e s e n t i n g J u d g e B l a i r i n t h i s C o u r t . A s such
Kemp s h a l l be h e l d t o t h e same s t a n d a r d a s i f it had been a named p a r t y .
I f Kamp f e l t a g g r i e v e d o v e r t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n , t h e p r o p e r remedy
s h o u l d h a v e been t o move f o r a r e h e a r i n g i n t h i s C o u r t , a l l o w i n g
t h i s Court t o promptly c o r r e c t i t s e r r o r , - t o have s a t i d l y
not
by and allowed Amsterdam Lumber and t h z d i s t r i c t court t o rely
on the error.
We turn now to Kamp's issue 1: Did Judge Dussault have
jurisdiction to make his order dated June 24, 1974? We hold
that he did. Kamp's argument, in summary, is: When this Court
remanded this controversy to the district court on November 27,
1973, the only item before the district court was Amsterdam
Lumber's motion filed October 11, 1973. Judge Dussault assumed
jurisdiction in this case on April 25, 1974. No further action
was taken until some fifty days later, on June 14, 1974, when
Judge Dussault held a hearing on Amsterdam Lumber's motion. This
time lapse of fifty days failed to comply with the time limits
of Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P. Therefore, Kamp alleges, Judge Dussault
lost jurisdiction to make his order dated June 24, 1974.
While Kamp proposes an interesting argument, it is based
upon the assumption that Judge Blair's judgment was valid, an
assumption we have already considered and found wanting. Be-
cause Judge Blair's judgment was void, there was no final judg-
ment to appeal from, on which to base a motion to vacate or alter
a judgment, nor from which Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., time limits could
be computed. There remained the necessity for a judge with juris-
diction to enter an appealable order, as was recognized by Judge
Dussault in his findings of fact, conclusions of law and order
entered June 24, 1974. Judge Dussault was complying with the
directions of this Court in State ex rel. Amsterdam Lumber, Inc.,
supra.
We affirm Judge Dussault's order which confirmed Judge
Shanstrom's judgment and substituted findings of fact and con-
clusions of law. We hold, as did Judge Shanstrom, that the denial
of Kamp's motion to set aside the default in cause number 19818,
and Kamp's failure to appeal therefrom, constitutes a bar to the
present action under the doctrine of res judicata.
I n r e p l y t o Fnsterdam Lumber's d e f e n s e of r e s j u d i c a t a ,
Kamp r e l i e s on t h e d e c i s i o n i n Selway v . Burns, E s t a t e of B u r l e s ,
150 Mont. 1, 8 , 429 P.2d 640, wherein t h e C o u r t s t a t e d :
" * * * it h a s l o n g been t h e r u l e i n Montana
t h a t a c o u r t of e q u i t y h a s i n h e r e n t power,
i n d e p e n d e n t of s t a t u t e , t o g r a n t r e l i e f from
judgments g a i n e d by f r a u d * * * t h e r e l i e f may
be g r a n t e d e i t h e r on motion i n t h e o r i g i n a l
a c t i o n o r i n a s e p a r a t e e q u i t y s u i t . Rule
6 0 ( b ) e x p r e s s l y p r e s e r v e d t h i s i n h e r e n t power
i n i t s l a s t s e n t e n c e which p r o v i d e s : 'This
r u l e d o e s n o t l i m i t t h e power of a c o u r t t o
e n t e r t a i n an independent a c t i o n t o r e l i e v e a
p a r t y from a judgment, o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g
* * *Ill-
While Selway s t a t e s t h e r u l e t h a t a l i t i g a n t may o b t a i n
r e l i e f from a judgment o b t a i n e d by f r a u d e i t h e r by a motion
under Rule 6 0 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., -
o r by an independent a c t i o n , it
d o e s n o t s t a t e t h a t a l i t i g a n t may p u r s u e b o t h r e m e d i e s . The
law of r e s j u d i c a t a r e m a i n s unchanged from t h a t s t a t e d y e a r s
ago i n Meyer v . Lemley, 86 Mont. 8 3 , 95, 282 P . 268:
" I n t h e c a s e a t b a r t h e s t a t u t o r y remedy was
p l a i n , speedy and a d e q u a t e . Under i t a p p e l l a n t
c o u l d have o b t a i n e d complete r e l i e f . It could
have had t h e d e c r e e , and a l l s u b s e q u e n t proceed-
i n g s t h e r e u n d e r , s e t a s i d e * * *. A p p e l l a n t
invoked t h e a i d o f t h e s t a t u t e , b u t t h r o u g h i t s
own f a u l t f a i l e d t o p u r s u e p r o p e r l y t h e remedy i t
afforded * * *
" ' I f t h e complaining p a r t y has r e s o r t e d t o an
a d e q u a t e l e g a l remedy, and been d e n i e d r e l i e f ,
t h i s a d j u d i c a t i o n s h o u l d b a r any r e l i e f i n e q u i t y
on grounds t h e n a v a i l a b l e which were o r might have
been t h e r e u r g e d . ' The form of t h e l e g a l remedy
i s i m m a t e r i a l , i f it be a d e q u a t e . ( 3 Freeman on
Judgments, 5 t h e d . s e c . 1 1 9 4 . ) * * *
" * * * A p p e l l a n t had an a d e q u a t e remedy, invoked
i t , l o s t it t h r o u g h i t s own f a u l t . He who summons
t h e p u b l i c f o r c e t o a i d him i n t h e a s s e r t i o n of
h i s r i g h t s must f o l l o w t h e r u l e s p r e s c r i b e d . He
c a n n o t be p e r m i t t e d , a f t e r h a v i n g s e l e c t e d a n
a p p r o p r i a t e and a d e q u a t e remedy and having f a i l e d
t h r o u g h h i s own f a u l t t o o b t a i n r e l i e f t h e r e b y ,
t o t h e n h a r a s s h i s b l a m e l e s s a d v e r s a r y by p u r s u i n g
a n o t h e r and d i f f e r e n t remedy. It i s t o the i n t e r e s t
o f s o c i e t y t h a t l i t i g a t i o n end; ' i n t e r e s t r e i p u b l i c a e
u t sit f i n i s litium. ' "
When Kamp f i l e d i t s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t i n
c a u s e number 19818, p u r s u a n t t o Rules 5 5 ( c ) and 6 0 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.,
it had an a d e q u a t e remedy. Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) p e r m i t s a l i t i g a n t t o
move f o r r e l i e f , and t h e c o u r t t o g r a n t s u c h r e l i e f , on t h e
grounds of f r a u d . I n h i s sworn a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e motion
t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t Thomas J . Kamp enumerated t h e i d e n t i c a l
f a c t s forming t h e b a s i s of t h e i n s t a n t f r a u d a c t i o n and a l l e g e d
t h e f a i l u r e of Amsterdam Lumber t o i n f o r m t h e c o u r t of t h i s
constituted alleged fraud. I n f a c t , Kamp e x p l i c i t l y a d m i t t e d
i n one of i t s t r i a l b r i e f s t h a t f r a u d w a s o n e of t h e grounds
advanced i n s u p p o r t of i t s motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t i n
c a u s e number 19818.
Kamp had i t s day i n c o u r t i n c a u s e number 19818 and a s
t o t h e i s s u e of whether t h e d e f a u l t judgment s h o u l d be s e t a s i d e ,
t h e p l e a d i n g s on f i l e i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e and answers t o i n t e r -
r o g a t o r i e s show t h a t t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n i s merely a r e h a s h of
Kamp's former motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment i n c a u s e
number even though i t a t t e m p t s t o t u r n t h e c a s e i n t o a n
i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n based upon t h e t h e o r y of Selway.
Kamp f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t d e s p i t e a l l t h e f o r e g o i n g , i t
s h o u l d n o t be b a r r e d by t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s j u d i c a t a s i n c e Judge
L e s s l e y e x c l u d e d much of t h e e v i d e n c e which Kamp s o u g h t t o o f f e r
a t t h e h e a r i n g on 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.
I t a l l e g e s t h e r e s u l t was t h a t i t was u n a b l e t o p r e s e n t f r a u d a s
an i s s u e . Under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) , M.R.Civ.P., fraud i s a proper
i s s u e t o p r e s e n t on a motion t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment. If
Kamp f e l t i t s e v i d e n c e was e r r o n e o u s l y r e j e c t e d by Judge L e s s l e y ,
its remedy a t t h a t t i m e was t o a p p e a l Judge L e s s l e y ' s o r d e r
d e n y i n g i t s motion; n o t t o have f u r t h e r h a r a s s e d Amsterdam Lumber
by i n s t i t u t i n g a new and s e p a r a t e a c t i o n . L i b i n v . H u f f i n e , 124
Mont. 361, 224 P.2d 1 4 4 . Kamp f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y p u r s u e t h e remedy
o r i g i n a l l y c h o s e n , t h e r e f o r e it i s b a r r e d from c h o o s i n g and p u r s u i n g
a new and s e p a r a t e remedy by t h e d o c t r i n e o f res j u d i c a t a .
I n i t s i s s u e 4 , Kamp, i n s u p p o r t o f i t s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t
J u d g e Shanstrom e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g h i s o r d e r nunc p r o t u n c ,
r e l i e s on t h e d e c i s i o n s i n S t a t e e x r e l . K r u l e t z v . D i s t r i c t
C o u r t , 110 Mont. 36, 98 P.2d 883; and S t a t e e x r e l . C r a i g v .
D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 1 5 3 Mont. 427, 458 P.2d 608, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n
t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s t h e power t o c o r r e c t a c l e r i c a l e r r o r ,
b u t n o t a j u d i c i a l e r r o r , by e n t r y o f a nunc p r o t u n c o r d e r . Kamp
c o n t e n d s t h a t when J u d g e Shanstrom e x e c u t e d Kampls f i n d i n g s o f
f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, he found i n f a v o r o f Kamp and c o u l d
n o t t h e r e a f t e r c h a n g e t h a t judgment by e n t r y o f h i s o r d e r nunc
pro tunc.
W e need n o t d e c i d e w h e t h e r a c l e r i c a l e r r o r o r a j u d i c i a l
e r r o r was made, f o r w h i c h e v e r was committed t h e r e s u l t i s t h e
same: t h i s a c t i o n w i l l be judged on t h e m e r i t s . I f a clerical
e r r o r was c o m m i t t e d , w e would a f f i r m J u d g e D u s s a u l t l s o r d e r con-
f i r m i n g J u d g e S h a n s t r o m ' s judgment f o r Amsterdam Lumber b a s e d
upon t h e g r o u n d s o f res j u d i c a t a . I f a j u d i c i a l e r r o r was made,
w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t judgment s h o u l d have been e n t e r e d f o r Kamp
b a s e d upon t h e o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w
f i l e d J u n e 29, 1973, w e would have t o r e v e r s e t h a t judgment,
a g a i n on t h e g r o u n d s o f res j u d i c a t a . E i t h e r way, Amsterdam
Lumber p r e v a i l s .
Kampls i s s u e 5 , w h e t h e r t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o
s u p p o r t a judgment i n f a v o r o f Kamp, h a s become i m m a t e r i a l . Res
j u d i c a t a i s a q u e s t i o n of law, not of f a c t .
Judgment f o r r e s p o n d e n t Amsterdam Lumber, I n c . i s a f f i r m e d .
--------.---------------------
* * ,
Justice