Hall v. Hall
380 Mont. 224
| Mont. | 2015Background
- Gregory Hall sued Don Hall and others over alleged nondisclosures of defects from a 2006 home sale; Don performed the property inspection.
- Don, largely unrepresented, sent a letter attempting to answer; the court ordered an answer under Rule 8 and set a deadline.
- Default was entered against Don on February 20, 2008 for failure to file an adequate answer; other defendants obtained summary judgment.
- A final default judgment was entered against Don on April 14, 2010, totaling $206,522.80, and a writ of execution followed; Don sought relief.
- Don later filed a December 2010 motion to set aside the default judgment; the district court denied it in January 2011; Don thereafter obtained bankruptcy relief in 2014.
- The Supreme Court reversed, held the case not moot due to the property seizure issue, and granted relief under Rule 60(b) to set aside the default judgment; it remanded to set aside the default and reimburse Don’s costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the case moot due to bankruptcy discharge? | Don says discharged judgment cannot be enforced. | Gregory argues discharge voids only liability, not execution. | Not moot; relief available for return of seized property. |
| Whether Don is entitled to relief from the default judgment under Rule 60(b) | Don seeks relief under Rule 60(b) for improper judgment. | Gregory contends default judgment proper and timely set aside. | Relief granted; judgment set aside. |
| Was a damages hearing required for the unliquidated damages? | Damages should be determined at a hearing. | Damages could be awarded by default without a hearing. | A damages hearing was necessary; default did not fix damages. |
| Was the 60-day limit applicable to Don's motion? | Rule 60(b) 60-day limit applied to all grounds. | Limit applies only to certain grounds; other grounds timely by reasonable time. | District court erred by strictly applying 60-day limit; reasonable-timing standard applied. |
| Is Don entitled to an out-of-time appeal under Rule 4(6)? | Exception should allow Don to appeal despite delay. | Untimely appeal denied. | Out-of-time appeal granted given extraordinary circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. Keenan, 118 Mont. 312 (Mont. 1946) (default relieves defenses but damages require proof at hearing)
- Paxson v. Rice, 217 Mont. 521 (Mont. 1985) (unliquidated damages require hearing; default admits allegations but not amount)
- Sawyer v. Somers Lumber Co., 86 Mont. 169 (Mont. 1929) (unliquidated damages require proof of amount at hearing)
- Greenup v. Russell, 2000 MT 154 (Mont. 2000) (pro se litigants granted latitude but not prejudice to others)
- Serranía v. LPH, Inc., 379 Mont. 17 (Mont. 2015) (bankruptcy discharge can moot some appeals but not all relief matters)