NO. 13468

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977

MICHAEL b.XSKEWITZ, Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs. CLAYTON BERG I Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the & rh Judicial District, Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Smith & Harper, Helena, Montana Charles A. Smith argued. For Respondent : Smith, Emmons, Baillie & Walsh James R. Walsh argued

Submitted: June 6, 1977

Decided :jUk 2 2 9977

Filed: JuN 22 !d w Honorable Leonard H . Langen, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . c h i e f J u s t i c e P a u l G. H a t f i e l d , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.

T h i s i s an a p p e a l from an o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,

f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Lewis and C l a r k County, d e n y i n g d e f e n -

d a n t ' s motion t o v a c a t e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r changing t h e

venue o f t h i s a c t i o n back t o Cascade County e n t e r e d on May

2 0 , 1976. The a c t i o n s e e k s r e c o v e r y of money a l l e g e d l y due

under a n o r a l c o n t r a c t .

On September 30, 1975, p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d

i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Cascade County,

and a f t e r motion made by d e f e n d a n t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t moved t h e

p l a c e of t r i a l t o Lewis and C l a r k County.

After t h e f i l e a r r i v e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e c l e r k of

c o u r t , L e w i s and C l a r k County, p l a i n t i f f moved t h e c o u r t t o

r e t u r n t h e c a s e t o Cascade County and by o r d e r made and e n t e r e d

A p r i l 1 2 , 1976, t h e motion was g r a n t e d . The o r d e r s t a t e d :

"The Motion of t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r Change of Venue having been s u b m i t t e d t o g e t h e r w i t h s u p p o r t i n g B r i e f and no opposing B r i e f o r Memorandum having been f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t , and t h e same b e i n g deemed a n a d m i s s i o n by d e f e n d a n t t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s Motion i s m e r i t o r i o u s , and it a p p e a r i n g i n any e v e n t t o t h e Court t h a t t h e Motion of p l a i n t i f f f o r Change o f Venue s h o u l d be a l l o w e d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l Change of Venue t o L e w i s and C l a r k County was i m p r o v i d e n t l y g r a n t e d .

"NOW, THEREFORE, I T I S ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s Motion f o r Change o f Venue from t h e above e n t i t l e d Court t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade be and t h e same i s hereby g r a n t e d . "

Two d a y s a f t e r t h e A p r i l 12 o r d e r , d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s

motion t o v a c a t e t h e A p r i l 1 2 o r d e r . The motion was s e t f o r

h e a r i n g f o r A p r i l 27, 1976, b u t a t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e movant

t h e A p r i l 27, 1976, h e a r i n g d a t e was v a c a t e d w i t h o u t d a t e .

F i n a l l y on May 21, 1976, t h e Lewis and C l a r k C o u r t

f i l e d i t s o r d e r s t a t i n g t h a t t h e motion of d e f e n d a n t t o v a c a t e

t h e o r d e r changing venue i s d e n i e d and on May 25, 1976, t h e f i l e was r e t u r n e d t o t h e c l e r k of c o u r t , e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t ,

Cascade County.

T h e r e a f t e r and on J u n e 1 6 , 1976, a Cascade County d i s t r i c t

judge was d i s q u a l i f i e d and a n o t h e r judge assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n .

On J u n e 2 1 , 1976, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d and s e r v e d h i s n o t i c e o f r e a d i -

ness f o r trial.

Three d a y s l a t e r , on J u n e 24, 1976, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s

n o t i c e of a p p e a l which s t a t e s :

" N o t i c e i s hereby g i v e n t h a t CLAYTON BERG, Defen- d a n t above-named, hereby a p p e a l s t o t h e Supreme Court of t h e S t a t e o f Montana from t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n and f o r t h e County of Lewis and C l a r k d e n y i n g D e f e n d a n t ' s Motion t o v a c a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r changing venue o f t h i s a c t i o n back t o C a s - c a d e County e n t e r e d h e r e i n on t h e 2 0 t h day o f May, 1976."

W f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d f o r e

t h e reason t h a t t h e order t o vacate i s not an appealable o r d e r

and, i f it w e r e t o be t r e a t e d a s a n a p p e a l from t h e o r d e r d a t e d

A p r i l 1 2 , changing t h e p l a c e of t r i a l t o Cascade County, t h e

a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t it was n o t t i m e l y

made.

Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P., provides:

"The t i m e w i t h i n which an a p p e a l from a judgment o r a n o r d e r must be t a k e n s h a l l be 3 0 d a y s from t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , e x c e p t t h a t i n c a s e s where s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment i s r e q u i r e d by Rule 7 7 ( d ) of t h e Montana Rules o f C i v i l Pro- c e d u r e t h e t i m e s h a l l be 30 d a y s from t h e s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e o f e n t r y of judgment * * *."

Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. r e q u i r e s t h a t upon e n t r y o f an

o r d e r t h e C l e r k s h a l l s e r v e a n o t i c e of t h e e n t r y by m a i l upon

e a c h p a r t y who i s n o t i n d e f a u l t and s h a l l make a n o t e i n t h e

d o c k e t of t h e m a i l i n g .

W c o u l d f i n d no e n t r y t h a t t h e A p r i l 12 o r d e r f o r change e

of venue was s e r v e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 7 7 ( d ) . However t h e f i l e

d o e s show t h a t d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s motion t o v a c a t e t h e A p r i l 1 2 order on April 14, 1976. Therefore we hold that in order for defendant to have made a timely appeal, his notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 14, 1976. Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., also provides for certain in- stances where the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal is suspended. However we are unable to find that de- fendant's situation comes within any of these exceptions. Rule 5 also permits the district court to extend the time for filing of notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect. However, by the time defendant got around to filing his notice of appeal in this case, the time for this relief had expired. Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., specifies from what judgment or order an appeal may be taken. The rule specifically allows an appeal from an order changing or refusing to change the place of trial when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county, but we find nothing in Rule 1 which permits an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order changing venue. Defendant raised other issues in his brief and during his oral argument. Since the appeal is being dismissed for the reasons stated, these issues are not being discussed. Judgment affirmed.

------------- ---- Hon. Leonard H. Langen, district' judge, sitting in place of Mr. Chief Justice Paul G. Hatfield.