Montana Deaconess Medical Center v. Doherty ( 1990 )

No. 89-459
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
MONTANA DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER,
a nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs-
EDDIE DOHERTY AND LOLA DOHERTY,
husband and wife,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade,
The Honorable John McCarvel, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Elizabeth A. Best; Best Law Offices, Great Falls,
Montana
For Respondent:
Sharon Anderson, Staff Attorney, Montana Deaconess,
Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: Dec. 1, 1989
Decided: February 8, 1990
1-
,..
. ..
Filed:
.
."
Clerk ..;.:4,.a.r.
'
Justice Diane G. Barz delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Eddie and Lola Doherty appeal from an order of the District
Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, denying
their motion to amend the court's findings of fact, conclusions of
law and order. We affirm.
Appellants received extensive medical treatment from
respondent Montana Deaconess Medical Center during 1986.
Appellants refused to pay in full the $8,325.99 balance remaining
on their bill and respondent filed suit. Following negotiations
between the parties' attorneys, appellants executed a confession
of judgment on October 29, 1986, acknowledging their indebtedness
to respondent in the amount of $8,325.99. The parties further
stipulated to a payment schedule and a periodic review of
appellants1 financial status by respondent.
Appellants substantially complied with their payment
obligations. In February of 1989, respondent, pursuant to an
analysis of appellants' most recent financial statement showing a
material change in available income, requested that appellants
increase the amount of their payments to $200 per month. When
appellants denied this request, respondent obtained a writ of
execution and recovered $643 from appellantst checking account in
March of 1989.
Appellants filed a petition to vacate judgment or stay further
execution on April 3, 1989. Appellants alleged in their petition
that appellant Eddie Doherty was under the influence of mind
2
altering drugs when he signed the confession of judgment.
Furthermore, appellants claimed respondent's unjustifiable
execution on their checking account coupled with the threat of
further execution caused serious detriment to Eddie Doherty's
health.
Following hearing on June 5, 1989, the District Court issued
the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order:
Findings of Fact
As appears from the record and the testimony
in this case, [appellants] signed a confession
of judgment dated October 29, 1987, which was
filed with this court on November 2, 1987. A
stipulation setting forth payment
arrangements, signed by attorneys for
[respondent] and [appellants] was filed
simultaneously. [Respondent] and [appellants]
were represented and advised by counsel at all
times relevant.
[Appellants] did not comply with the terms of
paragraph 4 of the Stipulation, in that they
failed to submit the complete and accurate
financial information to [respondent] every
six months and they failed to make the
increased payment required due to a material
change in [appellants1] net income as
evidenced by the financial statement submitted
February 1989. As a result of the
[appellants'] failure to comply with the terms
of paragraph 4, [respondent] caused a writ of
execution to issue in accordance with
paragraph 6 of the Stipulation. The sheriff
levied on $643.00 from [appellants'] bank
account.
Conclusions of Law
1. [Respondent] obtained judgment in the
amount of $8,325.99 plus interest and costs
against [appellants] pursuant to the
confession of judgment filed November 2, 1987.
2. [Appellants] are not entitled to
relief from judgment pursuant to Rule
60 (b)(1), 60(b) (2) or 60(b) (3) M.R.Civ.P. as
more than sixty days had passed between the
entry of judgment and the filing of the
petition.
3. [Appellants] are not entitled to
relief from judgment pursuant to Rule
60(b)(4), 60 (b)(5) or 60 (b)(6) as the evidence
present'ed is insufficient to support relief
for any of those reasons.
4. [Appellants ] motion (petition) was
not made within a reasonable time as it was
filed more than seventeen months after the
entry of judgment.
5. The confession of judgment operates
as res judicata in this case and is conclusive
as to all claims which were in existence
related to the subject matter of this case.
Order
It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed
that [appellants1] Petition to Vacate
Judgement (sic) or Stay Further Execution is
denied. The judgment entered in this matter
may be enforced.
Appellants appeal from the District Court's denial of their
motion to amend the above findings, conclusions and order denying
their petition to vacate the judgment against them. We affirm.
Rule 52 (b), M.R. Civ.P., permits district courts, upon motion
of either party, to amend findings of fact and modify judgments
accordingly. Nonetheless, on appeal, we will assume as correct the
findings of the District Court if such are buttressed by
substantial evidence. ~eridianMinerals Co. v. ~ i c o r~inerals,
Inc. (1987), 228 Mont. 274, 283, 742 P.2d 456, 461. The transcript
of the instant proceedings reveals that appellants were the only
witnesses. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial
credible evidence supports the findings of the District Court.
We likewise affirm the lower court's conclusions of law. The
District Court concluded that appellants were not entitled to
relief from their confession of judgment under any of the grounds
set forth in Rule 60(b), M.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b) requires that
parties move for relief within 60 days from entry of judgment if,
as in this case, the basis of their claim is mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, excusable neglect or fraud. Once the 60 day period has
passed and absent a reasonable delay, district courts may properly
deny amendment. In re the Marriage of Waters (1986), 223 Mont. 183,
187, 724 P.2d 726, 729. Appellants filed their petition to vacate
on April 3, 1989, one year, five months and one day after
respondent filed their confession of judgment. Appellants offer
no good reason for their delay. We affirm the District Court I s
denial of appellants' motion to amend its order denying their
petition to vacate the judgment against them.
Counsel for appellants interjects numerous collateral issues
in her brief. The dispositive issue on appeal is the propriety of
the District Court's refusal to vacate the judgment confessed by
appellants and entered by respondent. We may on appeal review only
those issues decided by the ~istrictCourt, and, absent an abuse
of discretion, we will not reverse its ruling. Wyman v. DuBray
Land Realty (Mont. 1988), 752 P.2d 196, 200, 45 St.Rep. 621, 625.
Counsel for appellants should further note that this Court may
review the entire district court record on appeal. Having done so
in the instant case, we find no evidence of fraud, collusion,
misrepresentation or deceit on the part of counsel for respondent
in any proceeding before this Court or the court below.
Allegations of this nature are quite serious and should not be made
lightly. certainly such accusations are no substitute for
substantive legal arguments. The District Court properly denied
appellantst motion for sanctions against counsel for respondent.
Affirmed.
--- A
T
Justice /
i
.
@P- Justices