Timis v. Young, No. 00-232.
| Docket Nº | No. 00-232. |
| Citation | 2001 MT 63, 22 P.3d 1122, 305 Mont. 18 |
| Case Date | April 18, 2001 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
22 P.3d 1122
2001 MT 63
305 Mont. 18
v.
Mark YOUNG, John Young and Rose Young, d/b/a Rose's Day Care, Defendants and Respondents
No. 00-232.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs October 19, 2000.
Decided April 18, 2001.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing May 15, 2001.
Anita Poe, Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, for Respondent.
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, Justice.
¶ 1 Jim and Connie Timis (Timises) brought suit in the Eleventh Judicial District Court against Mark, John and Rose Young (Youngs) alleging negligence and negligent supervision in the operation of their business, Rose's Day Care. The Timises agreed to settle the case prior to trial but later repudiated the settlement. The District Court then granted the Youngs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss the underlying action. The Timises' subsequent motion to set aside this order was deemed denied when the District Court failed to rule on it within sixty days. The Timises now appeal the order enforcing the oral settlement agreement, the dismissal of the case and the denial of the motion to set aside. We affirm the rulings of the District Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¶ 2 The Timises, on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor daughter, sued the Youngs for damages arising out of an alleged incident at the Youngs' day care. The parties held a voluntary settlement conference on November 11, 1998, with an experienced attorney and mediator serving as settlement master. Both the Timises and the Youngs were represented by counsel, and the conference resulted in an oral agreement settling the case.
¶ 3 Later, the Timises repudiated the agreement and refused to sign the settlement documents. Lengthy negotiations failed to resolve the impasse, so on April 29, 1999, the Youngs filed their motions to enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss the underlying case. The Timises did not respond, and the District Court granted the motions without objection on June 3, 1999.
¶ 4 On August 13, 1999, the Timises moved to set aside the District Court's order dismissing the case and enforcing the settlement agreement. The District Court initially set the matter for hearing on October 5, 1999, but, at the request of the Timises' counsel, who planned to be on vacation on that date, the hearing was rescheduled for December 17, 1999.
¶ 5 When the hearing finally took place, the Timises...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wamsley v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., No. DA 06-0194.
...but failed to do so. Thus, out of fairness to the District Court we will not consider it on appeal for the first time. Timis v. Young, 2001 MT 63, ¶ 8, 305 Mont. 18, ¶ 8, 22 P.3d 1122, ¶ ¶ 48 Issue Five: Did the District Court err by refusing to accord preclusive effect to the rulings from ......
-
State v. Clausell, No. 98-213.
...276 Mont. at 139, 915 P.2d at 216. Thus, the prosecutor's comment on Clausell's failure to mention a gun or gunshot wound to medical 22 P.3d 1122 personnel before police arrived was a comment on Clausell's pre-Miranda statements, rather than on post-Miranda silence and, therefore, did not c......
-
Bud-Kal v. City of Kalispell, No. DA 08-0318.
...objection by Bud-Kal to the City Attorney's affidavit and we will not consider the objection for the first time on appeal. Timis v. Young, 2001 MT 63, ¶ 8, 305 Mont. 18, 22 P.3d 1122. Even if a hearsay objection had been made below, the City Attorney's affidavit described what he personally......
-
Wamsley v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., No. DA 06-0194.
...but failed to do so. Thus, out of fairness to the District Court we will not consider it on appeal for the first time. Timis v. Young, 2001 MT 63, ¶ 8, 305 Mont. 18, ¶ 8, 22 P.3d 1122, ¶ ¶ 48 Issue Five: Did the District Court err by refusing to accord preclusive effect to the rulings from ......
-
State v. Clausell, No. 98-213.
...276 Mont. at 139, 915 P.2d at 216. Thus, the prosecutor's comment on Clausell's failure to mention a gun or gunshot wound to medical 22 P.3d 1122 personnel before police arrived was a comment on Clausell's pre-Miranda statements, rather than on post-Miranda silence and, therefore, did not c......
-
Bud-Kal v. City of Kalispell, No. DA 08-0318.
...objection by Bud-Kal to the City Attorney's affidavit and we will not consider the objection for the first time on appeal. Timis v. Young, 2001 MT 63, ¶ 8, 305 Mont. 18, 22 P.3d 1122. Even if a hearsay objection had been made below, the City Attorney's affidavit described what he personally......