321 P.3d 113
Mont.2014Background
- March 25, 2014 Montana Supreme Court decision in JAS, Inc. v. Eiseles et al.; quiet title action following a Trustee’s Sale of Bristlecone Place residence.
- Trustee’s Sale occurred November 15, 2011; JAS purchased for $282,488.08; BOA, Countrywide successors, and MERS had interest while BOA was not named or served.
- Notice mailing affidavits for trustee’s sale were recorded, but an Affidavit of Mailing for the November sale was not recorded.
- JAS filed quiet title action in February 2012; numerous defendants defaulted including Countrywide and MERS; BOA not named.
- Final judgment quieting title entered July 11, 2012; BOA sought intervention and to set aside default against Countrywide; MERS sought to set aside its default.
- District court granted BOA’s Rule 24(a) intervention and set aside Countrywide’s default; granted MERS’s Rule 60(b) relief from default; JAS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting BOA’s intervention. | JAS contends Rule 60(c) deemed denial bars intervention. | BOA argues Rule 24(a) governs intervention and that it had a protected interest. | No abuse; Rule 24(a) proper, timely intervention. |
| Whether the district court manifestly abused its discretion by granting MERS’s motion to set aside the default judgment. | JAS asserts no meritorious defense and timeliness issues bar relief. | MERS showed good cause under four-factor test and excusable neglect. | No manifest abuse; relief granted to set aside default judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Schwenke v. Becktold, 252 Mont. 127 (Mont. 1992) (intervention criteria (Rule 24(a)) require timeliness, interest, impairment, lack of adequate representation)
- Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose’s Saloon, Inc., 338 Mont. 423 (Mont. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60(b) and default judgments; merits-focused)
- Green v. Gerber, 303 P.3d 729 (Mont. 2013) (strict enforcement of Rule 60(c)(1) deadlines with a forfeiture caveat)
- Blume v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 791 P.2d 784 (Mont. 1990) (good cause standard for Rule 60(b)(1) in setting aside default judgments (4-prong Bowen test))
- Bowen v. Webb, 85 P. 739 (Mont. 1906) (four-prong test for ‘good cause’ under Rule 60(b) (diligence, excusable neglect, injury, meritorious defense))
- Matthews v. Don K Chevrolet, 327 Mont. 456 (Mont. 2005) (default judgments should be decided on merits when possible)