Brossart v. Janke

• Decision Date: 07 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20190236,20190236
• Parties: Rodney BROSSART , Susan Brossart and Thomas Brossart, Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Kelly JANKE , Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff for Nelson County, Eric Braathen, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Nelson County, and Nelson County, North Dakota, Defendants and Appellees
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

942 N.W.2d 856

Rodney BROSSART , Susan Brossart and Thomas Brossart, Plaintiffs and Appellants

v. Kelly JANKE , Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff for Nelson County, Eric Braathen, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Nelson County, and Nelson County, North Dakota, Defendants and Appellees

No. 20190236

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Filed May 7, 2020

Rehearing Denied June 2, 2020

Timothy C. Lamb, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Howard D. Swanson, Grand Forks, ND, for defendants and appellees.

VandeWalle, Justice.

[¶1] Plaintiffs appealed from a district court order denying their motion for relief from judgment and granting defendants’ motion to compel answers to interrogatories in aid of execution of judgment and awarding attorney’s fees. We affirm.

I

[¶2] In June 2014, Rodney, Thomas, and Susan Brossart, as plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in North Dakota federal district court against Nelson County, North Dakota, and the sheriff and a deputy sheriff of Nelson County, as defendants. The Brossarts alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court subsequently entered judgment against the Brossarts awarding defendants $8,153.08 in costs. The Brossarts did not appeal the judgment awarding costs to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[¶3] On September 12, 2017, the defendants filed the federal judgment awarding costs in the clerk’s office in Nelson County district court under N.D.C.C. ch. 28-20.1. On October 5, 2017, the defendants’ attorney electronically served the attorney representing the Brossarts in the federal lawsuit notice of the filing of the federal judgment. The Brossarts’ attorney did not initially file a notice of representation in the state court action or otherwise claim to represent the Brossarts in the state court action. The Brossarts’ attorney did not notify the defendants’ attorney that he did not represent the Brossarts in the state court action. However, the record indicates the Brossarts’ attorney continued to represent them in the federal action after being served with notice of the filing of the federal judgment, as he made filings relating to the federal lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court subsequent to being served with notice of the filing of the federal judgment. Neither the defendants’ attorney nor the clerk of the Nelson County district court mailed or otherwise served on the Brossarts notice of the filing of the federal judgment.

[¶4] On February 1, 2019, the defendants’ attorney served three sets of interrogatories in aid of execution of judgment, one for each of the three named plaintiffs, on the Brossarts’ attorney. Each set of interrogatories contained 73 identical questions. Subparts to the main questions contained in the interrogatories were separately numbered. The Brossarts’ were not personally served the interrogatories. However, on appeal the Brossarts acknowledge they were informed of the filing of the federal judgment on or about February 1, 2019.

[¶5] On February 19, 2019, the Brossarts’ attorney sent a letter to the defendants’ attorney informing him the Brossarts "[had] no intention of completing the form Interrogatories" because the Brossarts believed the federal judgment was procedurally and substantively defective. Nothing in the record indicates there had been communication between the parties’ attorneys concerning enforcement of the federal judgment prior to the February 19 letter sent by the Brossarts’ attorney. Additionally, there is nothing in the record indicating the Brossarts’ attorney represented them in the state court action prior to February 19. After the Brossarts’ attorney sent the February 19 letter, the parties’ attorneys continued to communicate regarding the interrogatories.

[¶6] The defendants filed a motion to compel answers to the interrogatories on May 6, 2019. On May 7, the Brossarts filed a motion for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. The Brossarts argued the federal judgment was invalid and unenforceable because they were not provided proper notice the federal judgment had been filed. The Brossarts also attacked the merits of the federal judgment arguing the federal judgment was invalid because the federal district court did not consider state law, the amount of the federal judgment was unreasonable, and the federal court was not justified in awarding the defendants certain costs of the federal litigation. The Brossarts did not argue the federal court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment, they were not afforded adequate due process in federal court, or that the federal judgment was fraudulently procured. On May 10, 2019, the clerk of Nelson County district court mailed the Brossarts notice of filing of the federal judgment.

[¶7] A hearing was held on the parties’ motions on July 8, 2019. On July 29, the district court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to compel and denying the Brossarts’ motion for relief from judgment. The court also awarded defendants $2,340.00 in attorney’s fees after determining the Brossarts’ justification for refusing to answer the interrogatories and their motion for relief from judgment were frivolous. The court determined the Brossarts were served notice on October 5, 2017, when the attorney representing them in the federal lawsuit was served notice of the filing of the federal judgment. The court also determined the Brossarts’ motion for relief from judgment was a collateral attack on the merits of the federal judgment, which was entitled to full faith and credit. Additionally, the court found the number of interrogatories served on the Brossarts did not exceed the number permitted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 33. The court reviewed the interrogatories and determined a total of 42 interrogatories were served if subparts were combined with the primary questions.

II

[¶8] The Brossarts argue the district court abused its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to compel answers to the interrogatories in aid of execution. "On appeal, we review orders compelling discovery under the abuse of discretion standard." PHI Fin. Servs. v. Johnston Law Office, P.C. , 2016 ND 114, ¶ 9, 881 N.W.2d 216 (citing W. Horizons Living Ctr. v. Feland , 2014 ND 175, ¶ 11, 853 N.W.2d 36 ). "A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner, when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision, or when it misinterprets or misapplies the law." Id.

A

[¶9] The Brossarts argue they were under no obligation to answer the interrogatories because they were not served notice of the filing of the federal judgment. North Dakota has adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) (codified at N.D.C.C. §§ 28-20.1-01 to -08). Under the Act, a foreign judgment is "any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state." N.D.C.C. § 28-20.1-01. To execute on or enforce a foreign judgment, notice must be provided to the judgment debtor:

Promptly upon the filing of a foreign judgment and the affidavit, the clerk shall mail notice of the filing of the foreign judgment to the judgment debtor at the address given and shall make a note of the mailing in the docket. The notice must include the name and post-office address of the judgment creditor and the judgment creditor’s lawyer, if any, in this state. In addition, the judgment creditor may mail a notice of the filing of the judgment to the judgment debtor and may file proof of mailing with the clerk. Lack of mailing notice of filing by the clerk shall not affect the enforcement proceedings if proof of mailing by the judgment creditor has been filed.

N.D.C.C. § 28-20.1-03(2). "No execution or other process for enforcement of a foreign judgment filed hereunder may issue until ten days after the date the judgment is filed." N.D.C.C. § 28-20.1-03(3).

[¶10] The main purpose of the provisions in § 28-20.1-03 is to provide the judgment debtor with basic due process by informing the debtor of the proceedings against him or her and affording the debtor an opportunity to respond. See Smith v. Ponderosa Realty & Dev., Inc. , 125 Ariz. 288, 609 P.2d 103, 104 (Ct. App. 1980) ; The Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Hubbard , 329 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) ; Concannon v. Hampton , 584 P.2d 218, 221 (Okla. 1978). In the context of a foreign custody decree, we have stated, "The notice requirement and the automatic stay of enforcement of a foreign judgment until 10 days after it has been filed with the clerk of a district court affords the judgment debtor an opportunity to request a stay of the enforcement of the foreign judgment and, in the case of a foreign custody decree, to also bring an action to modify the decree." Beck v. Smith , 296 N.W.2d 886, 892 (N.D. 1980). "If the judgment debtor does not avail himself of that opportunity, the foreign judgment can be enforced by the district court in like manner as a foreign judgment rendered by a court of this state." Id.

[¶11] Section 28-20.1-03(3) states execution or other enforcement processes may commence ten days after the date the judgment is filed, not ten days after notice is mailed or served. A plain reading of § 28-20.1-03(3) would allow a judgment creditor to execute on a foreign judgment and begin enforcement proceedings ten days after the judgment is filed regardless of whether notice is mailed to or attempted to be served on the judgment debtor.

[¶12] We interpret and construe statutes to avoid absurd, ludicrous, or illogical results. Wilkens v. Westby , 2019 ND 186, ¶ 6, 931 N.W.2d 229 ; Mertz v. City of Elgin , 2011 ND 148, ¶ 7, 800 N.W.2d 710. "We presume the legislature did not intend an absurd or ludicrous result or unjust consequences, and we construe statutes in a practical manner,...