King Arthur v. Rosecrance, 2017 MT 251N

Rosecrance rented a mobile-home lot from King Arthur Park, LLP; King Arthur sued in Justice Court on May 23, 2016 for possession and damages.
Rosecrance was served June 2, 2016, failed to appear or answer; Justice Court entered default on June 30, 2016 and a default judgment on October 3, 2016 (served October 7, 2016).
Rosecrance first appeared in Justice Court by filing factual documents on October 14 and November 7, 2016, but did not ask the Justice Court to set aside the default judgment.
Sheriff executed writs and removed Rosecrance on November 9, 2016; Rosecrance filed a notice of appeal November 13 and the case transferred to District Court November 17.
In District Court Rosecrance filed a Rule 60(b) motion (treated as his appeal). The District Court dismissed the appeal as untimely under § 25-33-102, MCA, and as not appealable under § 25-33-303, MCA.
Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the appeal was both untimely and, in any event, the default judgment raised no reviewable question of law on its face and no attempt had been made in Justice Court to set aside the default.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (King Arthur)	Defendant's Argument (Rosecrance)	Held
Whether Rosecrance timely appealed the Justice Court default judgment under § 25-33-102, MCA	Appeal was untimely; justice court judgment was dated Oct 3 and appeal must be within 30 days	Rosecrance asserted various defenses and filed Rule 60(b) after 30 days, arguing procedural and substantive defects	Held: Appeal untimely. Notice of appeal and Rule 60(b) were filed after the 30-day statutory window; dismissal affirmed
Whether the default judgment was appealable to district court under § 25-33-303, MCA	Default judgment not appealable except on questions of law appearing on the face of the papers or for abuse in setting aside/refusing to set aside default	Rosecrance contended his filings raised statutory and due-process issues and factual defects warranting review	Held: Not appealable. No questions of law appeared on the face of the Justice Court record and Justice Court did not abuse discretion (and Rosecrance never sought relief there), so dismissal also proper under § 25-33-303

Guethlein v. Family Inn, 375 Mont. 100, 324 P.3d 1194 (Mont. 2014) (appeal from justice court to district court is strictly statutory and subject to statutory time limits)
State v. Montgomery, 357 Mont. 348, 239 P.3d 929 (Mont. 2010) (appellate courts will not consider issues not raised below or new legal theories)