Puhto v. Smith Funeral Chapels, Inc.
2011 MT 279
Mont.2011Background
- Puhto and Barrett filed a negligence/misrepresentation action on Feb 26, 2009 arising from handling of their deceased uncle's remains.
- Counsel withdrew from representing Puhto and Barrett on Dec 8, 2009; Neuhardt filed notice of appearance for Barrett and Puhto on Mar 19, 2010.
- Smith filed a motion Oct 21, 2010 to confirm counsel; Neuhardt withdrew and the court vacated the hearing; documents were served at an incorrect address.
- Smith notified Plaintiffs to appoint new counsel or appear; a show cause hearing was set for Jan 27, 2011; neither Puhto nor Barrett appeared.
- District Court dismissed the case with prejudice on Jan 28, 2011 for failure to respond or appear; Puhto did not file a supporting affidavit; Barrett had misaddressed notices.
- Puhto filed a Rule 60(b) motion Feb 22, 2011 seeking relief from the dismissal; the court denied relief and an evidentiary hearing; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. | Puhto argues excusable neglect due to reliance on Barrett. | Smith argues neglect was not excusable and plaintiffs failed to prosecute. | No abuse; neglect not excusable; denial affirmed. |
| Whether Puhto's neglect was excusable under Rule 60(b) given reliance on Barrett. | Puhto relied on Barrett to manage litigation. | Reliance on Barrett does not excuse failure to act. | Not excusable; abandonment constitutes diligence failure. |
| Whether the district court should have granted an evidentiary hearing. | Puhto sought an evidentiary hearing for unresolved factual issues. | Court did not err in denying hearing where material facts undisputed. | No mandatory evidentiary hearing required; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Scott, 218 Mont. 410 (1985) (test for excusable neglect and default judgment timely action)
- In Re Marriage of Broere, 263 Mont. 207 (1994) (excusable neglect based on reasonable reliance and diligence; misled but corrective action taken)
- Timber Tracts v. Fergus Elec. Coop., 231 Mont. 40 (1988) (dismissal for lack of active and diligent pursuit of case)