915 N.W.2d 690
N.D.2018Background
- Steven and Linda Bickler sued Happy House Movers after the house Happy House Movers was raising fell and sustained major structural damage.
- Happy House Movers’ initially pro se answer (filed by employee Michael Knoke) was stricken because the LLP required licensed counsel; the court set a new deadline to answer.
- Happy House Movers did not timely file a proper answer and the district court entered a default judgment for $251,711.68 in December 2016.
- In November 2017 Happy House Movers moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate the default judgment and submitted affidavits; the Bicklers moved to strike the affidavits for form and substance defects.
- The district court struck the original affidavits, denied the motion to vacate (finding no excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances), and refused a stay; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bickler) | Defendant's Argument (Happy House Movers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike affidavits | Affidavits were improper in form and content and should be stricken | Affidavit defects were cured (later filings) and Rule 11 signature made them proper | Court properly struck the original deficient affidavits; appellate challenge to Rule 11 waived because not raised below |
| 60(b)(1) — excusable neglect based on insurer conduct | Default should stand; Bicklers argued no excusable neglect | Insurer allegedly had duty to defend, paid policy limits without approval, causing confusion and neglect | Court did not abuse discretion: HM failed to show insurer had duty to defend or provide affidavits from insurer; HM had responsibility to hire counsel or implead insurer; no excusable neglect shown |
| 60(b)(6) — extraordinary circumstances / amount of judgment | Default should stand | Argued alternate source of damages (prior mover) and excessive award justify vacatur under catch-all clause | Court did not abuse discretion: HM gave no authority or extraordinary circumstances; amount alone insufficient absent good excuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Kautzman v. Doll, 905 N.W.2d 744 (N.D. 2018) (appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief cannot be used to attack underlying judgment not appealed)
- Key Energy Servs., LLC v. Ewing Constr. Co., Inc., 911 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 2018) (standards for Rule 60(b) relief from default judgments; excusable neglect analysis)
- King v. Montz, 219 N.W.2d 836 (N.D. 1974) (insurer’s negligence in defense may justify vacating default where defendant promptly notified insurer)
- Hildebrand v. Stolz, 888 N.W.2d 197 (N.D. 2016) (Rule 60(b)(6) is a narrow, extraordinary-circumstances provision)
- Anderson v. Baker, 871 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 2015) (burden on moving party to establish sufficient grounds to disturb final judgment)