366 P.3d 673
Mont.2016Background
- Stafford sued Fockaert alleging he induced her to wire $100,000 (July 19, 2010) by fraudulent representations and then refused to return the funds.
- After pleadings and an earlier interlocutory appeal allowing Fockaert to amend, the district court set an April 6, 2015 trial and ordered mandatory mediation at least 45 days before trial.
- Fockaert initially refused to mediate, then equivocated about scheduling, and communicated to the mediator that he would not negotiate; he later attended the mediation center but gave a letter saying “There are no issues to mediate. I’m fully prepared and looking forward to the trial.”
- Stafford moved for sanctions for failure to participate in good faith; after a hearing the district court entered default judgment against Fockaert as a sanction and awarded prejudgment interest.
- Fockaert appealed pro se, arguing (1) he complied with the mediation order and thus default was improper, and (2) prejudgment interest was improper because damages were not certain until judgment.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed both the default judgment (as a lawful sanction under M. R. Civ. P. 16(f)/37) and the award of prejudgment interest from July 19, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment was an abuse of discretion as a sanction for failing to mediate | Stafford: Fockaert refused to mediate in good faith and disrupted court-ordered mediation; default proper under M. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and 37 | Fockaert: He complied by appearing and did not refuse to mediate; mediator misunderstood his statements | Court: No abuse—record showed bad-faith nonparticipation; default permissible sanction |
| Whether prejudgment interest under § 27-1-211, MCA, was improper because damages were uncertain until default | Stafford: Damages were a sum certain ($100,000) vested on July 19, 2010; interest mandatory when statutory elements met | Fockaert: Liability disputed, so damages were not ascertainable until judgment; interest inappropriate | Court: Interest required—damages were certain/ascertainable and right to recover vested July 19, 2010; interest accrues from that date |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. West, 353 Mont. 120, 218 P.3d 1227 (2009) (standard: abuse of discretion for sanctions under Rule 16(f))
- Xin Xu v. McLaughlin Research Inst. for Biomedical Sci., Inc., 328 Mont. 232, 119 P.3d 100 (2005) (two-step inquiry for sanctions: failure to comply and severity of sanction)
- Richardson v. State, 331 Mont. 231, 130 P.3d 634 (2006) (deference to district court’s factual findings on compliance)
- Amour v. Collection Prof’ls, Inc., 379 Mont. 344, 350 P.3d 71 (2015) (elements required for § 27-1-211 prejudgment interest)
- Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Bd. v. Crumleys, Inc., 341 Mont. 33, 174 P.3d 948 (2008) (discusses when damages are not clearly ascertainable for prejudgment interest purposes)
- Dew v. Dower, 258 Mont. 114, 852 P.2d 549 (1993) (prejudgment interest accrues when right to a sum certain vests)
- Lane v. Farmers Union Ins., 296 Mont. 267, 989 P.2d 309 (1999) (effect of default judgment: plaintiff’s allegations deemed admitted)
- Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2008) (prejudgment interest compensates for time value of money)
- West Virginia v. United States, 479 U.S. 305 (1987) (prejudgment interest aims to fully compensate loss of use of money)