Carter v. Badrock Rural Fire Dist.

Decision Date02 November 2021
Docket NumberDA 21-0266
PartiesMICKALE CARTER and EUGENE KIRSCHBAUM, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BADROCK RURAL FIRE DISTRICT and BADROCK FIRE AND QUICK RESPONSE UNIT, INC., believed to be the heirs and assigns of Badrock Rural Fire District, Defendants and Appellees.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

2021 MT 280

MICKALE CARTER and EUGENE KIRSCHBAUM, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.

BADROCK RURAL FIRE DISTRICT and BADROCK FIRE AND QUICK RESPONSE UNIT, INC., believed to be the heirs and assigns of Badrock Rural Fire District, Defendants and Appellees.

No. DA 21-0266

Supreme Court of Montana

November 2, 2021


Submitted on Briefs: September 22, 2021

District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-20-530B Honorable Robert B. Allison, Presiding Judge.

For Appellants: Mickale Carter, Attorney at Law, Columbia Falls, Montana.

For Appellees: Travis R. Ahner, Flathead County Attorney, Caitlin Overland, Deputy County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana.

OPINION

Ingrid Gustafson Judge.

1

¶1 Plaintiffs and Appellants Mickale Carter (Mickale) and Eugene Kirschbaum (Eugene) appeal from the September 1, 2020 Order and Rationale on Pending Motions, the May 3, 2021 Order and Rationale on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, and the May 6, 2021 Judgment issued by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. The District Court's orders denied the Appellants' motions for default judgment and for summary judgment and granted the summary judgment motion of Defendants and Appellees Badrock Rural Fire District and Badrock Fire and Quick Response Unit, Inc. (Badrock).

¶2 We address the following dispositive issues on appeal:

1. Did the District Court manifestly abuse its discretion by declining to enter a default judgment in favor of Appellants after Badrock did not complete service of its Answer until one day after the deadline of M. R. Civ. P 12?
2. Did the District Court err when it determined the Appellants' claims were barred by the doctrine of laches?

¶3 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶4 In 1990, Douglas and Thelma Carter deeded, via warranty deed, an 80-acre plot of real property in Flathead County to their seven children-Georgia Karpovich, Steven Carter, Randall Carter, Mickale Carter, Leslie Traynor, Tracy Witt, and Kelly Willis-as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. That 80-acre plot is described as:

North One half (Nl/2) of the North west Quarter (NW1/4) of Section Nine (9), Township Twenty-Nine (29), Range Twenty (20), West according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana.
2

Douglas and Thelma reserved a life estate for themselves, which was to terminate upon the death of the survivor. Upon the deaths of Douglas and Thelma, the seven siblings would receive fee simple absolute title to the 80-acre plot of real property.

¶5 In 1992, a certificate of survey was completed for the purpose of subdividing approximately 1.31 acres from the property, to be donated to Badrock pursuant to the "occasional sale" exemption of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, § 76-3- 207(1)(d), MCA (1991).[1] That tract (hereinafter "the Property") is described as:

A tract of land, situated, lying, and being in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 20 West, P.M., M., Flathead County, Montana, and more particularly described as follows to wit:
Tract 1:
BEGINNING at the northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 20 West P.M., M., Flathead County, Montana; Thence N89º01'16"E and along the north boundary of said NW1/4NW1/4 a distance of 380.00 feet to a set iron pin; Thence S00°07' 10"E 150.00 feet to a set iron pin; Thence S89°01' 16"W 380 feet to a point on the west boundary of said NW1/4NW1/4 and the centerline of a 60 foot county road known as Middle Road; Thence N00°07'10"N and along said west boundary and along said centerline a distance of 150.0 feet to the point of the beginning and containing 1.308 ACRES; Subject to and together with a 60 foot county road as shown hereon; subject to and together with all appurtenant assessments of record.

On August 2, 1993, Thelma transferred fee simple title of the Property to Badrock via warranty deed. The transfer of the Property by Thelma was dependent upon authorization for the sale via Power of Attorney documents (POA) signed by the seven siblings. In 1993,

3

before the transfer, the siblings each signed POAs regarding the Property.[2] As found by the District Court, the "POAs vary significantly in their language and several fail to contain the necessary language authorization [for] the transfer of real property."

¶6 After receiving the Property via warranty deed, Badrock set out to construct a fire station on the Property. During this process, Glacier Bank, with whom Badrock was working with on a loan, determined there "seem[ed] to be a problem" with the POAs signed by five of the seven siblings. On October 28, 1993, Glacier Bank sent Mickale a letter requesting she sign and return a new POA. Badrock did construct a fire station on the Property in 1993, and has occupied the Property ever since, making several improvements over the years.

¶7 In 1996, two of the siblings, Leslie and Kelly, transferred their interest in the 80-acre plot, excepting the Property, to their siblings via quitclaim deed. Douglas died in 2002. In 2017, the five remaining siblings transferred their interest in the 80-acre plot to Mickale and Eugene, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Also in 2017, Leslie and Kelly executed another quitclaim deed, transferring whatever interest they may have had in the 80-acre plot to Mickale and Eugene, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. On March 18, 2020, Thelma died.

4

¶8 On June 8, 2020, Mickale and Eugene filed an Action to Quiet Title in the District Court. Badrock was served with a Summons that same day. On June 26, 2020, Badrock filed a Motion to Require Joinder of Necessary Parties and Brief in Support. On June 29, 2020, Badrock filed its Answer to Action to Quiet Title, with a Certificate of Service noting it served copies of its Answer on Mickale and Eugene via first class mail on June 29, 2020. As shown on the envelopes Mickale and Eugene received, Badrock did not actually mail copies of its Answer to them until June 30, 2020. On July 14, 2020, Mickale and Eugene filed their Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and in the Alternative for Default Judgment. Badrock thereafter filed a motion to hold the summary judgment motion in abeyance and a motion for a scheduling order. After these motions were briefed by the parties, the District Court issued its Order and Rationale on Pending Motions on September 1, 2020. This order denied Badrock's motion to require joinder of necessary parties, granted Badrock's motion to hold Mickale and Eugene's summary judgment motion in abeyance, ordered Badrock to file a response to the summary judgment motion within 14 days following the close of discovery, and denied Mickale and Eugene's motion for default judgment. The District Court issued its Rule 16 Scheduling Order on September 30, 2020.

¶9 On December 22, 2020, following the close of discovery, Badrock filed its supplemental response to Mickale and Eugene's summary judgment motion. That same day, Badrock filed its own motion for summary judgment. No party requested a hearing, and after the parties fully briefed both summary judgment motions, the District Court issued its Order and Rationale on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment on May 3, 2021.

5

This order, in relevant part, denied Mickale and Eugene's motion for summary judgment to quiet title and granted Badrock's motion for summary judgment on Mickale and Eugene's quiet title claim. The District Court issued its Judgment on May 6, 2021, holding that Badrock held title to the Property in fee simple.

¶10 Mickale and Eugene appeal. Additional facts will be discussed as necessary below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶11 "This Court disfavors default judgments because our policy is that litigated cases are to be decided on the merits." Whitefish Credit Union v. Sherman, 2012 MT 267, ¶ 7, 367 Mont. 103, 289 P.3d 174. It does not appear that this Court has previously articulated the standard of review for the denial of a motion for default judgment. We have, however, previously determined the proper standard of review for when a district court grants a motion to set aside a default judgment is a manifest abuse of discretion. Benintendi v. Hein, 2011 MT 298, ¶ 17, 363 Mont. 32, 265 P.3d 1239 (citing Hoffv. Lake Cty. Abstract & Title Co., 2011 MT 118, ¶ 18, 360 Mont. 461, 255 P.3d 137). Because both setting aside a default judgment and denying a motion for default judgment have the same practical effect of allowing a case to go forward and be decided on the merits, the same standard of review should apply.[3] As such, we will review a district court's denial of a motion for default judgment for a manifest abuse of discretion. A manifest abuse of discretion is one

6

that is obvious, evident, or unmistakable. Benintendi, ¶ 17 (citing Bartell v. Zabawa, 2009 MT 204, ¶ 10, 351 Mont. 211, 214 P.3d 735).

¶12 We review summary judgment orders de novo, performing the same M. R. Civ. P. 56 analysis as the district court. Albert v. City of Billings, 2012 MT 159, ¶ 15, 365 Mont. 454, 282 P.3d 704. Summary judgment is only appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kucera v. City of Billings, 2020 MT 34, ¶ 6, 399 Mont. 10, 457 P.3d 952 (citing Davis v. Westphal, 2017 MT 276, ¶ 9, 389 Mont. 251, 405 P.3d 73).

DISCUSSION

¶13 1. Did the District Court manifestly abuse its discretion by declining to enter a default judgment in favor of Appellants after Badrock did not complete service of its Answer until one day after...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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