Roy v. Neibauer

Citation610 P.2d 1185,37 St.Rep. 897,188 Mont. 81
Decision Date12 May 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-56,79-56
PartiesRob ROY, Individually and as guardian ad litem of Heather Roy, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Walter NEIBAUER and John Carlson, Defendant and Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Montana

Hoyt, Trieweiler, Lewis & Regnier, Great Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Thomas E. Boland, Great Falls, for defendant and respondent.

SHEA, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals an order of the Cascade County District Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Walter Neibauer. The plaintiff's action against the other defendant, John Carlson, is still pending. Because the order appealed from is not a final one, and the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of certification specified in Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., this appeal is dismissed without prejudice. Because of the recurring problems this Court has faced with relation to piecemeal appeals, we are impelled to set forth the requirements which must be met for an appeal where the order appealed from is not otherwise final.

On January 5, 1979, the plaintiff commenced an action against his landlord, Walter Neibauer, and John Carlson, the tenant in the adjoining dwelling of the landlord's duplex. The complaint alleged that the defendants negligently permitted Carlson's dog to bite the plaintiff's ward, Heather Roy, when she was playing in the yard in front of the duplex, and sought damages for her injuries.

Both defendants filed answers to the complaint, but before the action proceeded to trial, the court granted defendant Neibauer's motion for a summary judgment. The court's order stated that the judgment did not concern the liability of the dog owner, John Carlson. The court simply determined that the landlord had no duty to remove his tenant's dog from the front yard of the duplex, and thus that he was not liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals this order.

The plaintiff's appeal is premature. A judgment which leaves undetermined the liability of one or more of the defendants cannot be appealed unless it is expressly made final upon a determination that there is no just reason for delay. See Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P.; Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P. See also Krusemark v. Hansen (1979), Mont., 597 P.2d 48, 36 St.Rep. 159; Knoepke v. Southwestern Ry. Co. (1979), Mont., 595 P.2d 376, 36 St.Rep. 957. The court's order entered judgment in favor of only one of the defendants, leaving the liability of defendant Carlson still to be decided.

Plaintiff appealed from the order granting summary judgment to defendant Walter Neibauer and made no attempt at all to comply with the certification requirements of Rule 54(b). Because of this failure to comply we must dismiss the appeal.

Although this Court has dismissed appeals in the past for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 54(b), it seems that the message has not been received. See, for example, Krusemark v. Hansen, supra; Knoepke v. Southwestern Ry. Co., supra; In Re Marriage of Adams (1979), Mont., 598 P.2d 197, 36 St.Rep. 565. We have also dismissed appeals involving trial court orders which were interlocutory in nature and lacking a final judgment. See, for example, Winter v. Rhodes (1979), Mont., 589 P.2d 1021, 36 St.Rep. 217; Blevins v. Kramer (1978), Mont., 587 P.2d 28, 35 St.Rep. 1843.

We tried to get this message across in rather strong terms in the case of In Re Adoption of BGB (1979), Mont., 599 P.2d 375, 36 St.Rep. 1638, but still apparently to no avail. In BGB, we stated:

"Too often this Court is confronted with cases that are not ready for appellate review within the meaning of the rules, but where the opposing parties do not bring this crucial fact to our attention. We often do not discover this until we are deeply into the process of review and indeed often in the opinion-writing stage. We cannot and will not tolerate this state of affairs.

"If the case is not ready for review, it should not be appealed. If for some reason it is appealed prematurely, it is the duty of the parties to bring this to our attention by an appropriate motion to dismiss so that it can be remanded to the District Court. This Court does not have the time and the resources to be compelled to independently search the record to determine if all essential issues have first been decided at the District Court level." 599 P.2d at 381.

Here neither party called our attention to the fact that the summary judgment was interlocutory in nature and that a Rule 54(b) certification had not been obtained. Both parties proceeded as though this case was one perfectly proper to appeal with no further adieu after the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant Neibauer.

We will set forth the applicable legal principles and procedural steps involved in relation to Rule 54(b). An adjudication lacks finality in a multiple claims or multiple parties action if the trial court adjudicates one or more but less than all of the claims. Krusemark v. Hansen, supra, 597 P.2d at 49, 36 St.Rep. at 160. The right of an immediate appeal from a partial judgment is governed by Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P.; In Re Marriage of Adams, supra; Krusemark v. Hansen, supra. Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., modeled after Rule 54(b), F.R.Civ.P., allows the trial court to certify a judgment as final. Rule 54(b), F.R.Civ.P. is designed to facilitate the entry of judgment on one or more claims, or as to one or more parties, in a multi-claim/multi-party action. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (3rd Cir. 1975), 521 F.2d 360, 363.

Rule 54(b) attempts to strike a balance between the undesirability of piecemeal appeals and the need to make review available at a time when it best serves the needs of the parties. Aetna Insurance Company v. Newton (3rd Cir. 1968), 398 F.2d 729, 734. It is in the discretion of the District Court to grant or deny a request for a Rule 54(b) certification, Singer Housing Co. v. Seven Lakes Venture (D.Colo.1979), 466 F.Supp. 369, 378; United Bank of Pueblo v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (10th Cir. 1976), 529 F.2d 490, 492. This does not mean, however, that the decision allowing an appeal to proceed should be lightly entered.

The proper procedure and approach which a trial court should take in relation to a certification under Rule 54(b), is discussed in Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (3rd Cir. 1958), 252 F.2d 452, 455:

"Thus, the procedure contemplated by Rule 54(b) is usually more than a formality. . . . (A)n application for a 54(b) order requires the trial judge to exercise considered discretion, weighing the overall policy against piecemeal appeals against whatever exigencies the case at hand may present. Indeed, the draftsmen of this Rule have made explicit their thought that it would serve only to authorize 'the exercise of a discretionary power to afford a remedy in the infrequent harsh case . . . .' 28 U.S.C.A., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 118-119 note. It follows that 54(b) orders should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy or accommodation to counsel. The power which this Rule confers upon the trial judge should be used only 'in the infrequent harsh case' as an instrument for the improved administration of justice and the more satisfactory disposition of litigation in the light of the public policy indicated by statute and rule. See 6 Moore, Federal Practice, 1953, 264-265."

Because an appellate court cannot consider the merits of a nonfinal order, the threshold question zeros in on the propriety of the Rule 54(b) certification. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., supra, 521 F.2d at 362; Gumer v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., Inc. (2nd Cir. 1974), 516 F.2d 283, 285. In federal court practice it has been the rule that an appellate court may dismiss an appeal from a judgment certified pursuant to Rule 54(b), if it finds that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the order. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey (1956), 351 U.S. 427, 437, 76 S.Ct. 895, 900, 100 L.Ed. 1297. Indeed, it has been held that if a trial court abuses its discretion in certifying an order of summary judgment as final, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., supra, 521 F.2d at 362-363. See B. B. Adams Gen. Con., Inc. v. Department of HUD (5th Cir. 1974), 501 F.2d 176, 177.

The burden is on the party seeking final certification to convince the trial court that the case is the "infrequent harsh case" meriting a favorable exercise of discretion. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., supra, 521 F.2d at 365; See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Schuff v. AT Klemens & Son
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 27 Diciembre 2000
    ...that the issue of disqualification was a matter unrelated to the merits of the underlying litigation. See, e.g., Roy v. Neibauer (1980), 188 Mont. 81, 87, 610 P.2d 1185, 1189 (listing five factors and three "guiding principles" that court should consider in making a Rule 54(b) certification......
  • Rogers v. Lewis & Clark Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 15 Septiembre 2020
    ...issue even when no party raises it. See Satterlee , ¶ 11 ; In re Marriage of Armstrong , ¶ 6 ; Kohler , ¶ 9 ; Roy v. Neibauer , 188 Mont. 81, 84, 610 P.2d 1185, 1187-88 (1980). ¶11 A district court may direct entry of final judgment under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b) "only upon an express determinat......
  • Ring v. Hoselton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 13 Mayo 1982
    ...issue, it has emphasized that a case should not be appealed until it is totally ready for review, stating in Roy v. Neibauer (1980), Mont., 610 P.2d 1185, 1187, 37 St.Rep. 897, 899: "If the case is not ready for review, it should not be appealed ... This Court does not have the time and the......
  • Sage Creek Drainage Area, Matter of, s. 87-528
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 11 Octubre 1988
    ...... Knoepke v. Southwestern Railway Company (1979), 182 Mont. 74, 595 P.2d 376. The federal government relies particularly upon Roy v. Neibauer (1980), 188 Mont. 81, 610 P.2d 1185 for its contentions that a temporary preliminary decree is not a final judgment appealable under the Montana Rules of Appellate Civil Procedure; that when premature appeals are brought in this Court, it is the duty of the parties to bring the lack of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT