Klock v. Town of Cascade
| Citation | 943 P.2d 1262,284 Mont. 167,54 St. Rep. 829 |
| Decision Date | 12 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-524,96-524 |
| Parties | Dale Thomas KLOCK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The TOWN OF CASCADE, Montana; Gordon Booth; Lauri Cary; Robert Nicholson; Medric Bruneau; Jack Whitaker; Roy Aafedt; Peggy Beltrone; Barry Michelotti; John Strandell; Brandt Light; Julie Macek; Murry Moore; Stockmens Bank; Robert Vermillion; and John Does and Jane Does, presently unknown, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
John Keith, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kevin C. Meek, Davis, Hatley, Haffeman & Tighe, Great Falls, for Town of Cascade Neil E. Ugrin, Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Higgins, Great Falls, for Whitaker, Aafedt, Beltrone, Michelotti, Strandell, Light, and Macek.
Booth, Cary, Nicholson, Bruneau, and Vermillion.
Guy W. Rogers and Tiffany B. Lonnevik, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull, Fulton,Harman & Ross, Billings, for Moore and Stockmens Bank.
The appellant, Dale Thomas Klock, filed a complaint against the respondents, the Town of Cascade, Montana, Gordon Booth, Lauri Cary, Robert Nicholson, Medric Bruneau, Robert Vermillion, Jack Whitaker, Roy Aafedt, Peggy Beltrone, Barry Michelotti, John Strandell, Brandt Light, Julie Macek, Murry Moore, and Stockmens Bank, in the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District in Cascade County. After a hearing, the District Court: (1) denied Klock's motion for entry of default judgment; (2) granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents; and (3) awarded attorney fees to the respondents, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Klock appeals. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
The following issues are presented on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err when it denied Klock's motion for entry of default judgment?
2. Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents?
3. Did the District Court err when it awarded attorney fees to the respondents, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988?
In February 1995, Murry Moore, president of Stockmens Bank, contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), and the Cascade County Sheriff's Office and informed them that Dale Thomas Klock, in his official capacity as Mayor of Cascade, deposited $20 million in the form of money orders into the Town of Cascade's bank account. Each money order stated that it was payable at Norwest Bank, Butte, Montana, through Account No. 8520799406. In the past, that account belonged to the United States District Court for the District of Montana. It was closed, however, due to attempts by "Freemen" to use its funds. In September 1994, Stockmens Bank and other Montana banks had been put on notice of these types of fraudulent transactions by a special notice from the FRB, and had been requested to contract the FBI upon receipt of such a transaction.
Robert Vermillion, general counsel for the Town of Cascade, learned of Klock's attempt to deposit the fraudulent money orders when he was contacted by Cascade Town Council member Lauri Cary. Due to his concern that the Town of Cascade could be exposed to civil liability, Vermillion contacted Klock and unsuccessfully attempted to gather information about the money orders. He also contacted Moore, who told him that the money orders were fraudulent.
On February 27, 1995, Vermillion prepared a memo in which he memorialized the substance of his conversations with Cary and Klock. He also sent a letter to Klock in which he advised him that, because he was the Town of Cascade's attorney, a potential conflict of interest could preclude him from giving legal advice to Klock regarding the money orders. Vermillion sent additional copies of that letter to Town of Cascade Council Members Medric Bruneau and Gordon Booth.
Julie Macek, Deputy County Attorney for Cascade County, investigated the matter. On March 6, 1995, she prepared an information with which to charge Klock with criminal syndicalism and official misconduct, and an affidavit in support. On that same day, Macek and Brandt Light, Cascade County Attorney, decided to issue a summons, and not a warrant, for Klock's arrest.
On March 8, 1995, Macek met with the Cascade County Attorney's staff and informed them of the charges which she and Light had decided to file. On March 9,1995, a meeting was held at the Cascade County Commissioner's Office. The following persons attended that meeting: Cascade Town Council members Lauri Cary and Robert Nicholson; Cascade County Commissioners Jack Whitaker, Roy Aafedt, and Peggy Beltrone; Cascade County Sheriff Barry Michelotti and Undersheriff John Strandell; and County Attorney Brandt Light. The purpose of the meeting was for Light to advise the attendees that the Cascade County Attorney's Office had decided to charge Klock with criminal syndicalism and official misconduct. The attendees also discussed personal and public safety issues.
On that same day, the information was signed by the District Court and filed with the Clerk. Klock was charged with one count of misdemeanor official misconduct and three counts of felony bad check issuance. He was served shortly thereafter. Following the March 9, 1995, meeting, Council members Cary and Nicholson discussed whether Klock should be suspended as mayor pending the outcome of the criminal charges. They personally agreed that the Town's best interests would be served by a suspension.
They also expressed concern with regard to the manner in which Klock or other Freemen might react to the suspension. Specifically, Cary was concerned that Klock or other Freemen might try to seize records from the Town Hall or otherwise impair the city government's operations. On that basis, she raised the issue of changing the locks to the Town Hall. She contacted Council member Bruneau and he agreed that the locks should be changed. She called a locksmith and had the locks to the Town Hall changed.
On March 10, 1995, a special meeting of the Cascade Town Council was held for the purpose of determining whether Klock should be suspended from his position as mayor. Notice of the hearing was posted at the Town Hall and at least three other locations. Approximately 100 to 150 people attended the meeting. During the meeting,all four members of the Town Council voted to suspend Klock from office pending the outcome of the criminal charges brought against him.
On August 21, 1995, Klock filed a complaint and request for injunctive relief in the District Court. The "County defendants" (Whitaker, Aafedt, Beltrone, Michelotti, Strandell, Light, and Macek) are identified in the counts which allege, inter alia, violation of civil rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and malicious prosecution/abuse of process. The "Town defendants" (the Town of Cascade, Booth, Cary, Nicholson, Bruneau, and Vermillion) are identified in the counts which allege, inter alia, wrongful removal from office, violation of civil rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights, malicious prosecution/abuse of process, and breach of fiduciary duty. Moore and Stockmens Bank are identified in the counts which allege, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and violations of Montana's Uniform Commercial Code.
The Bank filed an answer and denied all liability. The County defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court denied. Subsequently, the Bank, the County defendants, and the Town defendants (collectively, "the respondents") each filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by affidavits.
Klock filed a motion for entry of default judgment against the Town defendants and the County defendants. After a hearing, the District Court: (1) denied Klock's motion; and (2) granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents. The respondents also moved the District Court to award them attorney fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. After a hearing, the District Court granted that motion.
Did the District Court err when it denied Klock's motion for entry of default judgment?
At the summary judgment hearing, Klock moved the District Court to enter default judgment against the County defendants and the Town defendants. The court, however, concluded that they made a timely appearance in the action and strenuously defended against Klock's claims. On that basis, the court denied the motion.
On appeal, Klock contends that the District Court erred when it denied the motion for entry of default judgment. Specifically, he claims that the County defendants and the Town defendants failed to file an "answer" to the complaint. Therefore, he maintains that the court erred when it refused to enter default judgment against them.
The entry of default judgment is governed by Rule 55, M.R.Civ.P., which provides, in relevant part, that "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's default." Rule 55(a), M.R.Civ.P. (emphasis added).
After the County defendants' motion to dismiss was denied, the County defendants and the Town defendants each filed a motion of summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. We therefore conclude that at the time Klock filed a motion for entry of default judgment the County defendants and the Town defendants were, in fact, "otherwise defend[ing]" as provided by Montana's Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not err when it denied Klock's motion for entry of default judgment. That part of the District Court's judgment is affirmed.
Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents?
Summary judgment is governed by Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., which provides, in relevant part, as follows:
The judgment sought shall be rendered forth with if the pleadings, depositions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kostelecky v. Peas in a Pod LLC
... ... , 2003 MT 167, ... ¶¶ 15-16, 316 Mont. 320, 73 P.3d 795; Klock v ... Town of Cascade , 284 Mont. 167, 174, 943 P.2d 1262, 1266 ... (1997); Mysse v. Martens , ... ...
-
Timpano v. Cent. Mont. Dist. Six Human Res. Dev. Council, Inc.
...34 ; Old Elk v. Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies, Inc. , 2003 MT 167, ¶¶ 15-16, 316 Mont. 320, 73 P.3d 795 ; Klock v. Town of Cascade , 284 Mont. 167, 174, 943 P.2d 1262, 1266 (1997) ; Mysse v. Martens , 279 Mont. 253, 262, 926 P.2d 765, 770 (1996) ; Eitel v. Ryan , 231 Mont. 174, 178, 751 P......
-
Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre
...The Newspaper asserts that M.R. Civ. P. 7 limits responsive pleadings to an answer and urges us to reverse Klock v. Town of Cascade, 284 Mont. 167, 943 P.2d 1262 (1997), to the extent that it conflicts with Rule 7. Essentially, the Newspaper contends that allowing a party to circumvent the ......
-
Peterson v. Eichhorn
...mere denial, speculation, or conclusory statements, raising a genuine issue of material fact. Hadford, ¶ 14; Klock v. Town of Cascade, 284 Mont. 167, 174, 943 P.2d 1262, 1266 (1997). The determination that the moving party is or is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law is a legal conc......