Westmark Intern. Corp. v. Gold Hill Placers, Inc., 02-289.
| Decision Date | 29 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-289.,02-289. |
| Citation | 2003 MT 119,70 P.3d 731,315 Mont. 492 |
| Parties | WESTMARK INTERNATIONAL CORP., a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GOLD HILL PLACERS, INC.; Thomas R. Campbell and Linda M. Campbell, Individually; Thomas R. Campbell and Linda M. Campbell, Partners, Doing Business Under The Firm Name and Style of Campbell Properties Partnership; Harold Reid; Donald Wogamon; Harold Reid, Jim Brady & Donald Wogamon, Partners, d/b/a Gold Hill Placers; Donald M. Harper and Ronald P. Harper, Partners, d/b/a Missoula Mining; Brian Loucks, Tom Storm, Roger Hatler, and Townsend Mines, A Limited Partnership, d/b/a Antelope Placers; B & B Mining Partnership, Ltd; Seahawk, Inc.; William C. Baltrush; LSE, Inc.; the heirs and devisees of Defendants, if deceased; any personal representatives of Defendants; and all other persons, unknown claiming, or who might claim any right, title, estate or interest in, or a lien or encumbrance upon the real property or any part thereof, adverse to Plaintiff's ownership or any cloud upon Plaintiff's title thereto whether such claim or possible claim be present or contingent including any claim or possible claim of dower, in choate or accrued, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Kevin E. Vainio, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana, for Appellants.
Thomas A. Budewitz, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Respondent Westmark International Corp. (Westmark) filed a complaint to quiet title in the First Judicial District Court, Broadwater County. Although the complaint named several defendants, Appellant Gold Hill Placers, Inc. (Gold Hill) was the only defendant to appear. As the case proceeded, Westmark and Gold Hill were unable to agree upon a final pretrial order. Frustrated by this delay, the District Court stated that if the parties failed to present a final pretrial order by February 25, 2002, the trial date set for the case would be vacated. The parties failed to present a final pretrial order by February 25, 2002; however, the case proceeded to trial as scheduled. Gold Hill failed to appear at the trial, and the District Court entered judgment in favor of Westmark. Gold Hill subsequently filed a motion for a new trial. The District Court denied the motion, and Gold Hill appeals. We affirm.
¶ 2 We restate the sole issue on appeal as follows:
¶ 3 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Gold Hill's motion for a new trial?
¶ 4 On August 27, 1998, Westmark filed a complaint to quiet title on certain real property located in Broadwater County, Montana. The complaint named several defendants; however, Gold Hill was the only defendant to appear. The District Court subsequently entered judgment by default against the remaining defendants. On November 10, 1998, Gold Hill filed a counterclaim against Westmark, asserting that it was entitled to take possession of the disputed property, or in the alternative, to recover damages from Westmark in the amount of $3,700,000.00.
¶ 5 A pretrial conference was held on February 22, 2002. Counsel for both Westmark and Gold Hill appeared at the conference; however, the parties were not able to agree upon a final pretrial order. Frustrated by this delay, the District Court stated that if the parties failed to present a final pretrial order by February 25, 2002, the trial date set for the case would be vacated. The case was set for trial on March 4, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Gold Hill filed a motion to stay the trial date, as the parties failed to reach an agreement regarding the final pretrial order. The District Court denied Gold Hill's motion on February 28, 2002.
¶ 6 Gold Hill failed to appear at the March 4, 2002, trial. On March 5, 2002, the District Court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, in which it quieted title of the disputed property in favor of Westmark. Gold Hill filed a motion for a new trial on March 15, 2002. On March 22, 2002, the District Court issued an order, stating that Westmark was entitled to recover $23,507.50 in attorney's fees, and $1,904.10 in costs, from Gold Hill. The District Court denied Gold Hill's motion for a new trial on March 26, 2002. Gold Hill appealed the District Court's: (1) findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment; (2) March 22, 2002, order; and (3) denial of its motion for a new trial, on April 23, 2002.
¶ 7 The standard of review of a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial is manifest abuse of discretion. Satterfield v. Medlin, 2002 MT 260, ¶ 14, 312 Mont. 234, ¶ 14, 59 P.3d 33, ¶ 14. The decision to grant or deny a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion. Satterfield, ¶ 14.
¶ 8 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Gold Hill's motion for a new trial?
¶ 9 The District Court's minute entry from the pretrial conference on February 22, 2002, contained the following statement: "The Court ordered the parties to present the Final Pretrial Order by Monday, February 25, 2002, or the Trial date will be vacated." The parties failed to present a final pretrial order by February 25, 2002; however, the case proceeded to trial on March 4, 2002, as scheduled. Gold Hill did not appear at the trial.
¶ 10 The District Court entered judgment in favor of Westmark on March 5, 2002. Gold Hill subsequently filed a motion for a new trial. Gold Hill's motion asserted that because the parties did not present a final pretrial order by February 25, 2002, it believed that the trial date was vacated. Therefore, Gold Hill alleged that it was deprived of its substantive rights by: (1) an irregularity in the proceedings; or (2) an accident or surprise, when the District Court conducted the trial in its absence. Accordingly, Gold Hill maintained that it was entitled to a new trial pursuant to either subsection (1) or (3) of § 25-11-102, MCA.
¶ 11 Section 25-11-102, MCA, provides, in pertinent part, that:
¶ 12 When considering Gold Hill's motion for a new trial, the District Court noted that at no point did it ever vacate the March 4, 2002 trial date. Gold Hill apparently recognized that the trial was still scheduled because shortly after the pretrial conference it filed a motion requesting that the District Court continue the trial date. The District Court denied this motion on February 28, 2002. As such, the District Court found that it was unreasonable for Gold Hill to have assumed, in light of the above facts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Styren Farms, Inc. v. Roos
...in the proceedings or surprise, we review the denial of the motion for a manifest abuse of discretion. Westmark International Corp. v. Gold Hill Placers, Inc., 2003 MT 119, ¶¶ 7, 14, 315 Mont. 492, 70 P.3d 731. A manifest abuse of discretion is one that is obvious, evident, or unmistakable.......
- Shilhanek v. D-2 Trucking, Inc.
-
Bailey v. Beartooth Communications Co., 03-368.
...of discretion" standard of review of a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial. She cites Westmark Intern. Corp. v. Gold Hill Placers, Inc., 2003 MT 119, 315 Mont. 492, 70 P.3d 731—a quiet title action in which we affirmed the district court's denial of a motion for new trial—only fo......