Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co., DON-JOHN
| Decision Date | 09 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C0-85-440,DON-JOHN,C0-85-440 |
| Citation | 371 N.W.2d 15 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | GUILLAUME & ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent, v.COMPANY, Appellant, Summit State Bank of Bloomington, Respondent, Restan Care Nursing Home, et al., Defendants, Krueger Drywall Company, Reinke Wholesale of Minnesota, Inc., Hovole Plumbing and Heating, Inc., Respondents. |
Syllabus by the Court
The trial court erred in entering a default judgment against appellant because it failed to balance the relative weakness of appellant's excuse for failing to file a timely answer against the likelihood of a meritorious defense, appellant's diligence after learning of the default judgment, and the lack of prejudice to respondent.
John W. Lang, Lang, Pauly & Gregerson, Ltd., Minneapolis, for respondent.
John H. Brennan, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Heard, considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and PARKER and CRIPPEN, JJ.
Respondent Guillaume & Associates, Inc., served appellant Don-John Company with a complaint seeking both a mechanic's lien and a money judgment. Don-John did not answer the complaint.
After two and one-half years, Guillaume served notice on Don-John of its intention to apply to the district court for a default judgment. Don-John contested the motion, claiming it had not realized that Guillaume had a claim against it and that it had a meritorious defense. The trial court entered a default judgment against Don-John and denied its subsequent motion to vacate the default judgment. We order the default judgment vacated.
Don-John Company is the fee owner of real property in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In January 1979 Don-John entered into a contract for deed to sell the property to Restan Care Nursing Homes, Inc.
On May 26, 1982, Guillaume and Associates, Inc., served a summons and complaint on Don-John and the Summit State Bank of Bloomington. The complaint alleged inter alia that Guillaume had furnished labor and materials to "Don-John Company and Summit State Bank of Bloomington, a partnership, at their request and in the amount of $8,900.00 * * *." A lien statement attached to the complaint states that the labor and material were furnished at the request of Restan Care Nursing Homes. A bill of particulars shows correspondence and an invoice to Scarbrough & Associates. The complaint also sought a mechanic's lien on the premises. Don-John did not file an answer.
Over the next two and one-half years Guillaume litigated an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court taken by defendant Summit State Bank of Bloomington, for leave to file an answer, 1 and completed its discovery with respect to other named parties.
Guillaume served a notice of motion for default judgment upon Don-John on October 19, 1984. Both the company's attorney and Donald Litin, a partner in Don-John, immediately contacted Guillaume's attorney and indicated Don-John's desire to defend the action. The request was denied. At the November 1, 1984, motion hearing Don-John was represented by counsel, who contested the motion for default judgment and submitted an answer to the underlying action.
In its answer Don-John admitted receiving service of the summons and complaint but denied ever being in partnership with Summit State Bank and denied contracting for or having knowledge of the furnishing of labor and materials by Guillaume to the property. Don-John claimed it failed to respond to the complaint because it did not realize Guillaume was seeking relief that could have an adverse effect upon it since Restan Care's contract for deed payments were current and Don-John had not ordered any work from Guillaume.
Guillaume's motion for default judgment was granted. Subsequently, Don-John moved to vacate the default judgment and for leave to file an answer and cross-claim. The motion was denied. Don-John appeals from both the default judgment and order denying its motion to vacate.
Did the trial court err in granting a default judgment against appellant and in denying its motion to vacate the judgment?
When a party fails to plead or otherwise defend within the time allowed by law, a default judgment may be entered against it. Minn.R.Civ.P. 55.01. The factors to be considered in determining whether to grant a default judgment are substantially the same as those to be considered on a motion to vacate a default judgment. See Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of Chaska, 294 N.W.2d 712, 715 (Minn.1980). Don-John argues that the trial court erred because it failed properly to apply the criteria set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court for determining whether to grant or vacate a default judgment. We agree.
A party may be relieved from a final judgment if the judgment resulted from "excusable neglect." Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02. In interpreting this rule as applied to default judgments, the Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that whether a default judgment "should be opened is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court, and that court's decision will not be reversed unless such discretion is abused." Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180, 203 N.W.2d 401, 403 (1973). However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has said that
in keeping with the spirit of Rule 60.02, in furtherance of justice, and pursuant to a liberal policy conducive to the trial of causes on their merits, the court should relieve a defendant from the consequences of his attorney's neglect in those cases where defendant (a) is possessed of a reasonable defense on the merits, (b) has a reasonable excuse for his failure or neglect to answer, (c) has acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment, and (d) shows that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.
Id. at 179-80, 203 N.W.2d at 403; see also Conley v. Downing, 321 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Minn.1982). We are satisfied that the four factors are met in this case.
First, Don-John may have a reasonable defense on the merits. In order to obtain a personal judgment, Guillaume must show that the work was performed at Don-John's request. In his affidavit Litin denies that Don-John contracted for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp.
...reasonable excuse factor is outweighed by the other three factors"), review denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 1987); Guillaume & Assoc., Inc. v. Don-John Co., 371 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Minn.App. 1985) (holding that district court erred in entering default judgment because weak showing on excuse factor should......
-
Charson v. Temple Israel
...own deposition. Nevertheless, a weak excuse can be offset by a strong showing on the other factors. See Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co., 371 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). The next factor is whether Charson has a meritorious claim. Charson failed to show, either by affidavit......
-
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., C6-89-1228
...A weak showing on one factor may be overcome by a strong showing on the other three factors. Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co., 371 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). The trial court found that USSF 1 showed a reasonable defense on the merits, but did not conclude it was strong. O......
-
Gams v. Houghton
...relative weakness of one factor should be balanced against the strong showing on the other three factors.” Guillaume & Assocs., Inc. v. Don–John Co., 371 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Minn.App.1985). In particular, it may be appropriate to grant relief from a judgment when a party's weak excuse for neglec......