Lynch v. The New Public School District No. 8
2012 ND 88
| N.D. | 2012Background
- German, Ltd. sued Brossart for unpaid legal fees and expenses for services between 2008 and 2011.
- Brossart responded by placing notes on each page of the complaint, signing and dating them, signaling an appearance.
- German moved for a default judgment on August 24, 2011, and served related documents on that date.
- The district court granted German’s default judgment for $43,487.60 plus $110 in costs.
- The court concluded Brossart failed to answer or appear within twenty days of service.
- Brossart appealed the default judgment; this Court modified the judgment and affirmed, recognizing an appearance under Rule 55(a) and proper notice under Rule 55(a)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Brossart’s notice constitute an appearance under Rule 55(a)? | Brossart appeared when he sent back the signed notes signaling contest of the claim. | No appearance under Rule 55(a) since he did not file a formal answer under the Civil Rules. | Yes; Brossart appeared under Rule 55(a). |
| Was the default judgment proper given notice under Rule 55(a)(3)? | German served the motion for default judgment with notice as required when appearance is found. | Insufficient or improper notice to contest the judgment. | Proper notice under Rule 55(a)(3) was provided; judgment proper. |
| Was the attorney-client agreement proof requirement a barrier to entry of default? | Need not prove an attorney-client agreement to obtain a default judgment. | Must prove an agreement to preclude a default judgment. | Issue reviewed for irregularities; not dispositive on appeal; outside scope of review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Throndset v. Hawkenson, 532 N.W.2d 394 (N.D. 1995) (appearance broadly construed to include nonformal responses)
- Lillehaugen, 370 N.W.2d 517 (N.D. 1985) (formality not required for appearance under Rule 55)
- Svard v. Barfield, 291 N.W.2d 434 (N.D. 1980) (appearance includes negotiation meetings and discussions)
- Perdue v. Sherman, 246 N.W.2d 491 (N.D. 1976) (appearance evidenced by conversations about the lawsuit)
- Reimers Seed Co. v. Stedman, 465 N.W.2d 175 (N.D. Ct. App. 1991) (default judgment review focuses on irregularities on the face of the judgment)
- Commercial Bank of Mott v. Stewart, 429 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 1988) (notice standards for default judgments under Rule 55)
- Overboe v. Odegaard, 496 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1993) (district court exercises broad discretion in proof for default judgments)
- Riemers Dept. of Labor v. Reimers Seed Co., 2008 ND 191, 757 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 2008) (standard for reviewing default judgments on appeal for face-of-judgment irregularities)