Green v. Gerber Stockton Oil
369 Mont. 20
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Dec 2, 2008: Green is rear-ended by a Stockton Oil truck driven by Gerber on Highway 87 North, causing injuries and property damage.
- Jan 7, 2011: Green files a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Stockton Oil and Gerber; Stockton served, Gerber not.
- Feb 22, 2011: Default entered against Stockton Oil for failure to answer; Mar 31, 2011 damages hearing; Apr 5, 2011 judgment by default for Green totaling $308,200.
- Oct 11, 2011: Writ of Execution issued; $138,273.15 collected but later returned to the parties.
- Oct 19, 2011: Stockton moves to set aside under Rule 60(b)(6) for undisclosed EMC insurance payments; Oct 31, 2011: Green opposes.
- Dec 27, 2011: District Court grants Stockton’s motion; Jan 17, 2012: Stockton files answer; Green appeals and cross-appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could rule after the 60-day deemed-denial. | Green argues lack of jurisdiction after Rule 60(c)(1) deemed denial. | Stockton contends court retained jurisdiction to decide the motion. | District court did not lose jurisdiction; but erred on merits. |
| Whether the district court committed a slight abuse of discretion in deeming denial. | Green argues denial was not appropriate under Essex standards. | Stockton asserts the court adequately acted under Rule 60(b)(6) and related standards. | Court did not slightly abuse discretion (denial not reviewed as to merits). |
Key Cases Cited
- Maulding v. Hardman, 257 Mont. 18, 847 P.2d 292 (1993 MT) (illustrates Rule 60(b)(6) extraordinary circumstances and meritorious defense)
- Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose’s Saloon, Inc., 338 Mont. 423, 166 P.3d 451 (2007 MT) (three-prong test for Rule 60(b)(6): extraordinary circumstances, reasonable time, blameless)
- Karlen v. Evans, 276 Mont. 181, 915 P.2d 232 (1996 MT) (set aside under Rule 60(b)(6) when extraordinary circumstances and meritorious defenses apply if no ordinary grounds under 60(b)(1)-(5))
- Bahm v. Southworth, 2000 MT 244, 301 Mont. 434, 10 P.3d 99 (2000 MT) (three-part test for Rule 60(b)(6) (extraordinary, timely, blameless) later questioned)
- Davis v. State, 2008 MT 226, 344 Mont. 300, 187 P.3d 654 (2008 MT) (revisited time-bar tolling concerns; not jurisdictional)
- Cringle v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2010 MT 290, 359 Mont. 20, 247 P.3d 706 (2010 MT) (categorical deadlines do not deprive subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Miller v. Eighteenth Jud. Dist. Court, 2007 MT 149, 337 Mont. 488, 162 P.3d 121 (2007 MT) (time prescriptions are not jurisdictional but must be timely raised)
- Forsythe v. Leydon, 2004 MT 327, 324 Mont. 121, 102 P.3d 25 (2004 MT) (finality and deadline enforcement supporting strict timing)
- First Nat’l Bank v. Springs, 225 Mont. 62, 731 P.2d 332 (1987 MT) (set aside standard discussed in context of default judgments)
- Castor, In re Marriage of Castor, 249 MT 495, 817 P.2d 665 (1991 MT) (early articulation of Rule 60(b) considerations)