No. 14233
IN THE SUPRFME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1978
DONALD R. MCSEE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs-
BURLETCN NOIITHERN, INC., a corporation,
Defendant and Respondent
, .
Appeal fm: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
Honorable N a t Allen, District Judge presiding.
Counsel of &cord:
For Appellant:
John C. Hoyt argued, Great Falls, Wntana
For Respondent:
Gough, Snanahan, Johnson and Watennan, Helena, Montana
Cordell Johnson argued, Helena, Montana
Suhitted: October 1 2 , 1978
Decided: -3C' 2 - '978
Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
plaintiff appeals from an order of the District Court,
Cascade County, setting aside a satisfaction of judgment.
On November 15, 1977, this Court affirmed a jury verdict
of $618,000 in favor of plaintiff in his personal injury ac-
tion against defendant. McGee v. Burlington Northern (1977),
Mont. , 571 P.2d 784, 34 St.Rep. 1304.
On or about December 7, 1977, negotiations began between
counsel for both parties to reach a mutually agreeable satis-
faction of the judgment. In the course of these negotiations,
defendant offered plaintiff $490,000 to satisfy the judgment.
Allegedly this amount plus $171,306.04 obtained by plaintiff
through executions on defendant's property, covers the full
amount of the judgment with interest, and awards plaintiff
his costs. Plaintiff accepted the offer. On December 9, 1977,
defendant gave plaintiff's counsel a check for $490,000 in
return for a satisfaction of judgment. Defendant thereafter
filed the satisfaction of judgment with the District Court.
Shortly after plaintiff's counsel had received defen-
dant's check, cashed it and distributed the proceeds, defen-
dant informed him that it was going to stop payment on the
check. Defendant told plaintiff's counsel that it was going
to stop payment because it had overpaid plaintiff $10,000.
Defendant stated that in arriving at the $490,000 figure, it
had overlooked $10,000 in advances given plaintiff in 1971
and 1972, which he had agreed to repay. Plaintiff's counsel
L told defendant that it could not stop payment on the check,
because it had been cashed and the proceeds distributed.
Thereafter on December 28, 1977, defendant filed a mo-
tion under Rule 60(b), M.R.Civ.P., to have the satisfaction
of judgment s e t a s i d e on t h e grounds o f m i s t a k e and s e e k i n g
r e s t i t u t i o n of t h e $10,000 a l l e g e d l y o v e r p a i d t o p l a i n t i f f .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e motion s u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s .
B r i e f s were s u b m i t t e d by b o t h s i d e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t
g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of
judgment. P l a i n t i f f now a p p e a l s from t h a t o r d e r .
I n h i s appeal, p l a i n t i f f has r a i s e d f i v e s e p a r a t e i s s u e s
f o r our consideration. W e w i l l discuss these issues i n t h e i r
broader context. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e s t a t e t h e u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e
i n t h i s manner:
Was i t p r o p e r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o s e t a s i d e t h e
s a t i s f a c t i o n of judgment t h r o u g h a motion under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ,
M.R.Civ.P.?
Rule 6 0 ( b ) s u p p l i e s a p r o c e d u r e whereby a p a r t y upon mo-
t i o n c a n b e r e l i e v e d from a " f i n a l judgment, o r d e r o r proceed-
ing" f o r c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c reasons. One of t h e r e a s o n s t h a t
i s a v a i l a b l e t o a p a r t y i s "mistake". Defendant a r g u e s t h a t
i t was upon t h i s ground t h a t i t made i t s motion.
Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 5 ) p r o v i d e s t h a t a p a r t y may b e r e l i e v e d from
a f i n a l judgment upon a showing t h a t i t h a s been s a t i s f i e d .
The r u l e d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e t h a t a s a t i s f a c t i o n o f
judgment i s a f i n a l judgment, o r d e r o r p r o c e e d i n g from which
r e l i e f may b e o b t a i n e d .
I f t h i s r u l e were i n t e n d e d t o b e used i n t h e manner d e f e n -
d a n t used i t , t h e r u l e would n o t p r o v i d e t h a t a ground f o r
r e l i e f from a judgment i s t o show t h a t i t h a s been s a t i s f i e d .
W hold t h a t 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 d e f e n d a n t ' s
e
motion under Rule 60 ( b ) .
Our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Rule 6 0 ( b ) i s bottomed on what we
consider t h e i n t e n t of t h e d r a f t e r s . I n construing the ~ u l e s
of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , we a p p l y t h e r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c -
tion. P i e r c e Packing Company v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
Mont. , 579 P.2d 760, 35 St.Rep. 656. W give e f f e c t t o
e
t h e p l a i n language used i n i t s o r d i n a r y meaning and c o n s i d e r
t h e r u l e i n i t s e n t i r e t y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i n t e n t of t h e
drafters. P i e r c e Packing Company v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s u p r a ;
G i l d r o y v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 26, 507 P.2d low. By
g i v i n g e f f e c t t o t h e p l a i n language used i n Rule 6 0 ( b ) and
considering the r u l e i n i t s e n t i r e t y , w e believe the i n t e n t
of t h e d r a f t e r s was t h a t a s a t i s f a c t i o n of judgment c o u l d n o t
b e s e t a s i d e by a motion under t h i s r u l e .
Our d e c i s i o n h e r e d o e s n o t mean t h a t a s a t i s f a c t i o n of
judgment c a n n o t b e s e t a s i d e . I t may be v a c a t e d by a p p r o p r i a t e
proceedings f o r proper cause. Such p r o c e e d i n g s a r e governed
by e q u i t a b l e r u l e s . 47 Am J u r 2d Judgments 81032,
W e hold t h a t such a p p r o p r i a t e proceedings a r e an inde-
pendent a c t i o n i n equity. A s t h e Utah Supreme C o u r t h a s s a i d :
". . . T h i s a c t [ f i l i n g a s a t i s f a c t i o n of judg-
ment] became f a i t a c c o m p l i , and c o u l d b e undone
o n l y by a c o n v e n t i o n a l a c t i o n i n e q u i t y , claim-
i n g f r a u d , m i s t a k e , undue i n f l u e n c e , w i t h r e g u l a r
s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s , a p p r o p r i a t e s p e c i f i c i t y a s
b a s i s f o r i n v o c a t i o n of e q u i t y , and t h e r e s t of
t h e trimmings." [Bracketed m a t e r i a l added.]
Utah C.V. F e d e r a l C r e d i t Union v . J e n k i n s (Utah
1 9 7 4 ) , 528 P. 2d 1187, 1189.
I f d e f e n d a n t d e s i r e s t o have t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of judgment
v a c a t e d , i t must p r o c e e d i n t h i s manner.
Counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f a l s o c l a i m s t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p between him and p l a i n t i f f t e r m i n a t e d upon t h e
s a t i s f a c t i o n of judgment. He t h e n a r g u e s t h a t s e r v i c e of t h e
motion upon him r a t h e r t h a n p l a i n t i f f was improper. Under t h e
f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , we f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s argument.
Counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f appeared i n t h e a c t i o n i n t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t t o a r g u e a g a i n s t t h e motion of d e f e n d a n t . His
f i l i n g of a b r i e f i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e motion c o n s t i t u t e d a
g e n e r a l appearance. T h i s C o u r t h a s s a i d t h a t when a d u l y
l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y makes a n a p p e a r a n c e i n a p r o c e e d i n g , h i s
a p p e a r a n c e i s p r e s u m p t i v e e v i d e n c e of h i s a u t h o r i t y t o r e p r e -
s e n t t h e p e r s o n f o r whom he a p p e a r s . Coleman v. D i s t r i c t
C o u r t ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 1 2 0 Mont. 372, 186 P.2d 91. Counsel f o r p l a i n -
t i f f w i l l n o t now be h e a r d t o c l a i m t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p had t e r m i n a t e d .
F i n a l l y , counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f has requested t h i s Court
t o impose s a n c t i o n s upon d e f e n d a n t under Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P.
He a r g u e s t h a t under t h i s r u l e , w e c a n impose s a n c t i o n s upon
defendant f o r i n s t i t u t i n g t h i s a c t i o n without reasonable
grounds f o r i t . W e disagree.
Rule 32 p r o v i d e s t h a t s a n c t i o n s may be imposed upon a
party f o r bringing a frivolous appeal. The s a n c t i o n s a r e
a u t h o r i z e d a g a i n s t a n a p p e l l a n t , n o t a r e s p o n d e n t i n whose
favor t h e D i s t r i c t Court r u l e d . By no s t r e t c h of t h e l a n g u a g e
c a n damages b e awarded a g a i n s t a r e s p o n d e n t under t h e p l a i n
l a n g u a g e of Rule 32.
The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e s a t i s -
f a c t i o n of judgment under Rule 6 0 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., i s vacated
and t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f judgment i s r e i n s t a t e d .
~~~ B. W&,&
Chief J u s t i c e
' ce
I
b22.
'