Farmers State Bank of Conrad v. Iverson, 12387

• Decision Date: 29 May 1973
• Docket Number: No. 12387,12387
• Citation: 509 P.2d 839,162 Mont. 130
• Parties: FARMERS STATE BANK OF CONRAD, a Montana banking corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carol O. IVERSON et al., Defendants, and Ralph Bouma and Mrs. Ralph Bouma, Petitioners and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 839

509 P.2d 839

162 Mont. 130

FARMERS STATE BANK OF CONRAD, a Montana banking corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carol O. IVERSON et al., Defendants, and Ralph Bouma and Mrs. Ralph Bouma, Petitioners and Appellants.

No. 12387.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted March 27, 1973.

Decided May 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1973.

Dale L. Keil and Gale R. Gustafson argued, Conrad, for appellants.

Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, C. S. McCracken argued, Great Falls; Swanberg, Koby, & Swanberg, Great Falls, Raymond F. Koby argued, Great Falls, Dzivi, Conklin, Johnson & Nybo, Montana, James W. Johnson argued, Great Falls, for respondent.

EDWARD T. DUSSAULT,^* District Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Pondera County made August 29, 1972, striking the motion of petitioners and appellants to set aside the district court judgment of October 2, 1967.

To fully understand this appeal a brief review of the long litigation involving four separate cases in Pondera County is appropriate at this point.

It all began in August 1965, when the Farmers State Bank of Conrad, plaintiff and respondent herein, filed its complaint in cause No. 7779 in the ninth judicial district, County of Pondera, to collect on several notes totaling in excess of $104,000 given to it by Carl O. Iverson and others, defendants herein, said notes being secured by stock of Larry C. Iverson, Inc., a Montana corporation. This corporation then had assets in land and chattels in Pondera and adjacent counties, in excess of a million dollars, but had considerable other indebtedness not pertinent to this discussion.

Extensive proceedings followed resulting in a sheriff's sale of the pledged corporate stock to plaintiff and a judgment for plaintiff on October 2, 1967, by the district court approving the sale of the stock, although it allowed the corporation to prevent a forfeiture of its stock if its terms of its August 22, 1966 'purchase of indebtedness' agreement made in open court were complied with by October 10, 1967. This compliance never occurred so the judgment became final.

From this judgment an appeal to this Court was taken by defendants but never perfected.

Up to this point it is to be noted that petitioners and appellants were not parties to this litigation, nor in any other causes of action being Nos. 8073 and 8221, Pondera County, both of which involve the appointment of a receiver for the Carl O. Iverson Corporation and operation of the corporate properties.

There is a cause of action however in which petitioners and appellants are involved as defendants, and that is cause No. 8509, Pondera County wherein the receiver of the Carl O. Iverson Corporation is seeking to have set aside a 'contract for deed' executed on July 17, 1968 by purported officers of the corporation as seller to the petitioners as buyers, and a 'farm operation' agreement between the corporation and petitioners and appellants dated June 16, 1967.

Now going back to the original action, cause No. 7779, from which this appeal found its beginning.

Commencing with July 1972, petitioners and appellants began filing in this proceeding certain documents now known as 'Bouma papers'. These papers consist of an affidavit of disqualification, petition to set aside judgment of October 2, 1967, motion for stay of proceedings, affidavit, application for oral hearing on motion, motion for advisory jury, brief in support of motion, motion to strike nonparties postjudgment, statement for the record and brief in support of motion to stay proceedings, all filed pro se.

On August 29, 1972 the district court entered its order, filed August 30, 1972, finding:

'all of said filings of said Ralph and Mrs. Ralph Bouma in said cause are frivolous, entirely without merit, and that Ralph Bouma and Mrs. Ralph Bouma are not entitled to any relief of whatever nature in said cause, and are strangers into said cause without any right whatever to be heard or otherwise participate therein;

'NOW...