March 10 2015
DA 14-0518
Case Number: DA 14-0518
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2015 MT 80N
LEONARD WALLACE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
NORMAN HAYES and
RODNEY J. HAYES,
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 01-0882
Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Leonard Wallace (self-represented); Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
For Appellees:
Tom Singer, Axilon Law Group, PLLC; Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 11, 2015
Decided: March 10, 2015
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve
as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of nonciteable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Leonard Wallace (Wallace) appeals from the order of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial
District Court, Yellowstone County, renewing a 2004 judgment it rendered in favor of
Norman Hayes, MagTrac Bolus Partnership, Gerald Hill, Lucille Hill, Jack Heyneman, John
Heyneman, and Rodney J. Hayes (Hayes, et al.). We reverse.
¶3 On August 3, 2004, Hayes, et al., obtained a judgment against Wallace for
$2,500,000. On June 17, 2014, Hayes, et al., filed a motion asking the District Court to
renew this judgment. They alleged that over $2,068,771.22 of the judgment remained
unsatisfied. Wallace objected to this motion. He argued that the original judgment was
invalid because of fraud, due process violations, and contempt of court. For these reasons, he
claimed that the District Court should not renew the judgment, and he asked the District
Court to review the legality of the judgment. Despite Wallace’s arguments, the District
Court granted the motion of Hayes, et al., and issued an order renewing the judgment.
¶4 Wallace appeals from this order. He repeats the arguments that he made to the
District Court and asks this Court to reverse the order and to remand for a hearing on the
validity of the original judgment.
¶5 Hayes, et al., concedes that the judgment was renewed in error. They admit and we
agree that a judgment cannot be renewed on the motion of a party. Jones v. Arnold, 272
2
Mont. 317, 325, 328,
900 P.2d 917, 922, 924 (1995); see also Welch v. Huber,
262 Mont.
114, 116,
862 P.2d 1180, 1181 (1993) (reversing an order granting an ex parte motion to
renew a judgment). As we have stated, “a judgment may be extended past its 10 year
duration only by filing a separate action to obtain a judgment on the judgment.” Jones,
272
Mont. at 325,
900 P.2d at 922 (citing § 27-2-201(1), MCA; Welch,
262 Mont. at 116,
862
P.2d at 1181) (emphasis added). Because Hayes, et al., did not file a separate action and
instead requested renewal by motion, the District Court erred by renewing the judgment. For
this reason, we reverse the order of the District Court. This decision does not preclude
Hayes, et al., from filing a separate action to renew the judgment.
¶6 We do not agree, however, with Wallace’s claim that he is now entitled to remand and
a hearing on the merits of the original matter. Even if an action to renew the judgment was
properly instituted, Wallace would not be entitled to argue the merits of the original matter.
State v. Hart Refineries,
109 Mont. 140, 143,
92 P.2d 766, 768 (1939); Haupt v. Burton,
21
Mont. 572, 575-76,
55 P. 110, 111 (1898). He is by no means entitled to a hearing on the
arguments which he has unabatingly made to the District Court during the past thirteen
years, which he has brought to the attention of this Court on eleven occasions, and which are
– as they have been for over a decade – settled as res judicata. The District Court did not err
by refusing to grant a hearing on Wallace’s arguments.
¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for nonciteable memorandum opinions. The issues
in this case are legal and are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court
3
incorrectly interpreted.
¶8 Reversed.
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
We Concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
4
