Whitefish Credit Union v. Sherman
289 P.3d 174
Mont.2012Background
- Whitefish Credit Union (WCU) loaned Russell Sherman over $1.59 million; Joan Sherman was involved but not personally served.
- Russell was personally served; Joan was not; Russell failed to answer or appear, leading to a default.
- WCU obtained a default on November 2, 2011, and sought a default judgment; Sherman motion to vacate filed November 16, 2011.
- District Court granted partial vacation for Joan (void for lack of service) but denied vacation for Russell; judgment against Russell remained.
- Shermans appeal arguing district court abused its discretion; court analyzed whether voiding Joan’s judgment affected Russell and whether 60(b) relief was warranted.
- Court affirmed denial of vacation as to Russell; Joan’s judgment was void for lack of service, but Russell’s status remained separately addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court slightly abuse its discretion denying vacatur as to Russell? | Sherman(s) argue 60(b)(1/4) relief should apply to Russell. | WCU argues no abuse; Russell was properly served and failed to respond timely. | No slight abuse; relief denied. |
| Did voiding Joan’s judgment due to lack of service also void Russell’s judgment? | Joan’s lack of service could void entire judgment. | Authority does not support voiding Russell’s judgment when he was properly served. | Joan’s judgment void; Russell’s remained valid. |
| Was relief under Rule 60(b)(6) available after not meeting other subsections? | Could obtain equitable relief despite other subsections failing. | Relief under 60(b)(6) unavailable when (1)–(5) do not apply and other criteria failed. | Not available; ineligible after failure under (1) and (4). |
Key Cases Cited
- Caplis v. Caplis, 321 Mont. 450, 91 P.3d 1282 (2004 MT 145) (default judgment and setting aside standards)
- Fonk v. Ulsher, 260 Mont. 379, 860 P.2d 145 (1993 MT) (service issues; voiding decrees related to nonserved parties)
- Nikolaisen v. Advance Transformer Co., 340 Mont. 332, 174 P.3d 940 (2007 MT) (improper service; not controlling for two-defendant voiding)
- Blume v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 242 Mont. 465, 791 P.2d 784 (1990 MT) (the four-part Blume test for 60(b)(1) relief)
- Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose’s Saloon, Inc., 338 Mont. 423, 166 P.3d 451 (2007 MT 202) (guidance on Rule 60(b)(6) exceptional circumstances)
- Matthews v. Don K Chevrolet, 327 Mont. 456, 115 P.3d 201 (2005 MT 164) (application of Blume test; four-part standard)
- In re Marriage of Waters, 724 P.2d 726 (1986 MT) (equitable relief considerations under Rule 60(b))
- Johansen v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, 955 P.2d 653 (1998 MT 51) (court’s role in evaluating arguments and factual record)
- Roberts v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 923 P.2d 550 (1996 MT) (excusable neglect standards; summons command)