Mortensen Construction Co. v. Burl ( 1985 )

No. 85-296
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1985
MORTENSEN CONSTRUCTION CO., a n d
GLEN A. MORTENSEN, i t s P r e s i d e n t ,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,
-vs-
BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
In a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f C a s c a d e ,
The Honorable J o h n McCarvel, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
T h o m a s S p e n c e a r g u e d , BN R a i l r o a d C o . , Billings,
Montana
F o r Respondent:
L a r r y J o h n s o n ; James G r a y & M c C a f f e r t y , G r e a t F a l l s ,
Blon t a n a
P a t r i c k S u l l i v a n argued; Winston & C a s h a t t , Spokane,
Washington
Submitted: September 27, 1985
Decided: November 6 , 1 9 3 5
. _
L
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e F r a n k B. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
t h e Court.
D e f e n d a n t B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n , I n c . , a p p e a 1s t h e J a n u a r y
28, 1985, judgment in favor of plaintiff Mortensen
Construction Company. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the
appeal a s untimely is granted.
On J a n u a r y 2 8 , 1985, judgment was e n t e r e d in favor of
M o r t e n s e n C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. (Mortensen) and n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f
judgment was mailed to Burlington Northern, Inc. (BN). BN
timely filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
v e r d i c t a n d m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l o n F e b r u a r y 8 , 1985. Prior
t o f i l i n g these motions, BN r e q u e s t e d the court reporter to
p r o v i d e a t r a n s c r i p t of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . Due t o a b a c k l o g o f
work, and t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r 's hospi-talization, no p o r t i o n s
of the transcript were provided t o BN u n t i l May 8, 1985.
N o r u l i n g w a s made o n t h e m o t i o n s , so on March 2 5 , 1 9 8 5 ,
both motions were deemed denied pursuant to Rule 59(d),
M.R.Civ.P. No e n t r y of t h e deemed d e n i a l s w a s made i n t h e
c o u r t r e c o r d , n o r w a s n o t i c e o f s u c h s e n t t o BN. The 30-day
time limit on appeals commenced on March 25, 1985, and
expired on April 24, 1985. Thereafter, BN c o u n s e l f i l e d a n
affidavit o n May 9, 1985, informing t h e District Court he
would amend the motions once he received the entire
t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings.
On May 2 7 , 1 9 8 5 , M o r t e n s e n s e n t a l e t t e r t o BN d e m a n d i n g
payment o f t h e judgment. On May 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 , BN f i l e d a m o t i o n
f o r s t a y o f p r o c e e d i n g s t o e n f o r c e judgment. A h e a r i n g was
h e l d b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court on June 3 , 1985, which g r a n t e d
the stay of execution, yet asserted it no longer had
j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c a s e . BN f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l o n
June 3, 1985. Mortensen responded w i t h a motion to d i s m i s s
a p p e a l and motion f o r award o f damages, f i l e d J u n e 18, 1985.
The issues we address are: 1) whether BN's appeal is
timely; and 2) whether Mortensen s h o u l d b e awarded damages
a n d c o s t o f t h i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , M. R.App.Civ. P.
BN argues that Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P. entitled it to
r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e deemed d e n i a l . o f i t s m o t i o n s . Rule 5,
M.R.App.Civ.P. p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t , t h a t a t i m e l y Rule 5 0 ( b ) o r
R u l e 59 m o t i o n s u s p e n d s t h e r u n n i n g o f t i m e f o r a p p e a l u n t i l
an o r d e r i s e n t e r e d upon t h e m o t i o n and t h e c l e r k h a s m a i l e d
n o t i c e o f such e n t r y .
I n making t h i s a r g u m e n t , BN i g n o r e s t h e p a s t d e c i s i o n s
o f t h i s C o u r t t h a t R u l e 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. invokes a mandatory
time l i m i t . F i e l d s v. Summit E n g i n e e r i n g (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 653
P.2d 1204, 39 S t . R e p . 2057; S e l l v. Sell (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 630
P.2d 222, 38 S t . R e p . 956; L e i t h e i s e r v. Montana S t a t e P r i s o n
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 343, 505 P.2d 1203. The n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n
of R u l e 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P. a p p l i e s t o o r d e r s upon m o t i o n s , n o t
deemed d e n i a 1s. Rule 59(d), M.R.Civ.P., as amended,
e f f e c t i v e October 9, 1984, c l e a r l y p r o v i d e s t h a t a p o s t - t r i a l
motion i s deemed d e n i e d 45 d a y s a f t e r i t s f i l i n g if it h a s
n o t been r u l e d upon. W e f i n d B N ' s reading o f t h e Rules t o be
i n c o r r e c t , and d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a s u n t i m e l y .
M o r t e n s e n a s s e r t s i t i s e n t i t l e d t o damages and c o s t o f
t h i s a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t t o Rule 3 2 , M.App.R.Civ.P. W do n o t
e
agree. The test for granting damages under Rule 32,
M.App.R.Civ.P. is whether there are substantial and
reasonable grounds for appeal, and whether the appeal was
taken merely f o r d e l a y purposes.
BN's appeal advances a reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e
relationship between Rule 59 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. and Rule 5,
P4.App.R.Civ.P. While t h e same a r g u m e n t h a s b e e n p r e v i o u s l y
rejected by t h i s C o u r t , see L e i t h e i s e r , supra, R u l e 59 ( d ) ,
P4.R.Civ.P. h a s s i n c e b e e n amended, and R u l e 5 , M.App.R.Civ.P.
may be amended in the near future for its lack of clarity.
We do not find BN's appeal to be frivolous, and deny
Mortensen's motion for damages pursuant to Rule 32,
M.App.R.Civ.P.
We concur:
hhief Justice
'
1\f!P7A6L444&
Justice