Mountain West Bank, N.A. v. Glacier Kitchens, Inc.
2012 MT 132
Mont.2012Background
- Defendants Glacier Kitchens, Inc., CR Weaver Trust, and the Estate of Grace Weaver faced default judgments in Flathead County’s Eleventh Judicial District Court after failing to answer MWB’s counterclaim.
- MWB’s counterclaim sought foreclosure and asserted breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and bad-faith handling.
- Service was attempted on Weaver’s daughter Elizabeth (not a corporate officer, trustee, or personal representative), raising questions about proper service on the Defendants.
- Weaver (pro se) answered only in his individual capacity; the Defendants did not appear or file an answer as entities, prompting MWB to obtain defaults on July 28, 2010 and default judgments on August 9, 2010.
- Weaver later sought to set aside the judgments (August 30, 2010); MWB objected, arguingElizabeth’s authority and Weaver’s non-attorney status, and the district court did not rule for an extended period.
- Counsel for the Defendants later filed a second set of Rule 60(b) motions (February 1, 2011); the district court again did not rule, leading to an appeal that was dismissed without prejudice for lack of capability to represent the entities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgments are void for lack of proper service under Rule 4D (2009). | MWB contends service to Elizabeth was valid because Elizabeth was Weaver’s daughter. | Weaver argues Elizabeth had no authority to accept service for Glacier Kitchens, the CR Weaver Trust, or the Estate, so service never occurred. | Yes; service was invalid and the judgments void ab initio; district court erred in not setting aside the judgments. |
| Whether the district court properly denied the motions to set aside under Rule 60(b) (2009). | MWB maintains timeliness/merits; motions duplicative and improperly filed by non-attorney for entities. | Defendants argue the judgments are void and should be set aside; timeliness issues were not properly raised below. | The district court’s denial was reversed; the judgments are void and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
| Whether res judicata bars the Defendants’ Rule 60(b) motion given prior attempts. | Res judicata should apply to prevent relitigation. | Judgments were void; invalid judgments cannot have res judicata effect. | Res judicata does not bar because the judgments are void ab initio. |
| Whether MWB’s notices of entry affected the timeliness or validity of the motions. | MWB notes entry of judgments informed Defendants; moved on merits later. | Defendants contended procedural flaws and improper representation. | Timeliness concerns not properly raised below; issue not fatal to void-judgment remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Semenza v. Kniss, 122 P.3d 1203 (Mont. 2005) (voidness if service errors prevent court from obtaining jurisdiction)
- Day v. Payne, 929 P.2d 864 (Mont. 1996) (unfair to fault trial court for issues not raised below; first-on-appeal rule)
- Becker v. Rosebud Operating Servs., 345 Mont. 368 (MT 2008) (default-judgment context; timeliness and procedural raising rules)
- Touris v. Flathead County, 258 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2011) (res judicata requires final judgment on the merits; depends on validity of prior judgment)
- Mason v. Genisco Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1991) (invalid service defeats judgment; res judicata requires valid judgment)