 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Connell v. State12/18/2003
Submitted on Briefs: May 30, 2002
The State of North Dakota appeals the judgment of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, denying its motion to intervene.
We address the following issues on appeal and affirm.
1. Did the District Court err in denying the State of North Dakota's motion to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure?
2. Did the District Court err in denying the State of North Dakota's motion to intervene as permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure?
3. Did the District Court err in awarding attorney's fees?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Beginning in 1989, after an interstate referral from North Dakota, the Montana Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), as the "agent" of the State of North Dakota, initiated a collection action against Reid Connell.
An in-person hearing was held regarding the debt claimed due by CSED on February 15, 1991. CSED failed to submit its findings of fact and conclusions of law after this hearing, as requested by the administrative law judge, although Connell submitted his. As a result, no decision regarding this hearing was entered.
Nearly four years after the February 15, 1991 hearing, Connell moved for default judgment, and, in the alternative, to dismiss North Dakota's collection action. The administrative law judge denied Connell's motions, and Connell appealed to the Fourth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the administrative law judge's decision. Connell then appealed the District Court's decision to this Court. In Connell v. State, Dept. of Social Services (1997), 280 Mont. 491, 930 P.2d 88, this Court held that CSED's delay in submitting its findings of fact and conclusions of law after the February 15, 1991 hearing violated Connell's due process rights under Montana's Constitution. Connell , 280 Mont. at 498, 930 P.2d at 92-93. This Court remanded the case to the District Court for entry of an order dismissing "with prejudice" CSED's collection action against Connell. Connell , 280 Mont. at 498, 930 P.2d at 93.
On February 3, 1997, the District Court issued its Order and Judgment, dismissing with prejudice CSED's collection action against Connell and awarding Connell his attorney's fees and costs.
On February 5, 1998, the District Court ordered the release of certain seized funds and again awarded Connell his attorney's fees and costs. In its order, the District Court stated that, "In this case, Connell sought a determination that he owed no child support whatsoever . . . his Court [the District Court] determines that should be the interpretation given the Supreme Court's decision." CSED did not appeal this order, although the director of Child Support Enforcement Division for the North Dakota Department of Human Services was aware of the decision.
On April 9, 2001, the State of North Dakota moved to intervene for purposes of vacating the above-quoted portion of the District Court's 1998 order, so as to pursue further collection actions against Connell. The District Court denied the State of North Dakota's motion to intervene on October 1, 2001, and awarded Connell his attorney's fees and costs.
The State of North Dakota now appeals the District Court's judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's order granting or denying a motion to intervene for abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of C.C.L.B. , 2001 MT 66, 23, 305 Mont. 22, 23, 22 P.3d 646, 23. The test for an abuse of discretion is whether a
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|