920 N.W.2d 317
N.D.2018Background
- Cheri Poitra sought child support from Shane Martin through the Bismarck Regional Child Support Unit; Martin was served with summons and complaint on Sept 19, 2017.
- Martin returned a financial affidavit to BRCSU on Oct 8, 2017 but did not file an answer or responsive pleading in district court.
- The State moved for default judgment under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 on Nov 7, 2017 after more than 21 days had passed; Martin was served with the default motion as required.
- On Nov 17, 2017 Martin’s counsel filed a “notice of special appearance” contesting jurisdiction and attaching a tribal custody petition, but filed no affidavit, motion, answer, or other responsive pleading.
- The district court warned Martin multiple times that a special appearance was not a motion and instructed him to file a motion; default findings and judgment were entered Feb 20–21, 2018.
- Martin moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from judgment; the district court denied the motion and Martin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin’s filing of a financial affidavit and a notice of special appearance constituted an appearance preventing default judgment | State: Default was proper because Martin failed to plead or otherwise appear per rule; he received proper notice and opportunity to respond | Martin: Returning the financial affidavit and filing a notice of special appearance constituted an appearance that precluded default under Rule 55(a) | Court held Martin’s filings were insufficient; an appearance alone (a special appearance) without a pleading or motion does not preclude default; default judgment was proper |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) | State: No abuse; Martin failed to show extraordinary circumstances to disturb finality of judgment | Martin: Relief warranted because he had effectively appeared and was therefore improperly defaulted | Court held no abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and Martin did not meet the burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. Berry, 903 N.W.2d 68 (2017) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) relief)
- Knutson v. Knutson, 639 N.W.2d 495 (2002) (Rule 60(b) invoked only for extraordinary circumstances)
- Shull v. Walcker, 770 N.W.2d 274 (2009) (party’s deliberate procedural choices do not justify Rule 60(b) relief)
- Gustafson v. Gustafson, 841 N.W.2d 743 (2014) (an appearance alone is insufficient to prevent default; procedural notice requirements under Rule 55(a)(3))
- Perdue v. Sherman, 246 N.W.2d 491 (1976) (default judgment is available when the adversary process is halted by an unresponsive party)
- Galloway v. Galloway, 281 N.W.2d 804 (1979) (extraordinary circumstances required for Rule 60 relief)
- Gajewski v. Bratcher, 240 N.W.2d 871 (1976) (burden on movant to show extraordinary circumstances)