Background
Michelle Dilsaver petitioned for legal separation in June 2025. After attempts to serve Gregory Dilsaver personally at an address he had provided were unsuccessful because he did not live there, Michelle served him by publication. Gregory did not timely respond or otherwise appear, and the clerk entered his default on September 29, 2025.
Following an October 16, 2025 hearing, the District Court granted the legal separation, adopted Michelle’s proposed parenting plan, and divided the parties’ property and debts. Gregory appealed, arguing that the court failed to consider his answer and did not notify him of the hearing, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to present his case and of property without due process.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. It held that Gregory’s attempted answer was not a valid responsive pleading because he tendered it only after default had been entered, did not pay the required filing fee, failed to provide valid contact information, and did not satisfy the filing and service requirements of Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Because Gregory never moved under Rule 55(c) or Rule 60(b) to set aside the default, the District Court did not err by declining to consider the attempted answer.
The Court also held that Gregory was not entitled to notice of the hearing. Under Rules 5(a)(2) and 55(b)(2), notice was unnecessary because he was in default for failing to appear and had not appeared personally or through a representative before default. The Court rejected his due-process claim because he had received service by publication and an opportunity to respond within the time prescribed by the procedural rules.
Key Takeaways
- A party may not file further pleadings after entry of default unless the default is first set aside under Rule 55(c) or Rule 60(b).
- A defaulted party who never appeared personally or through a representative is not entitled to notice of a default-judgment hearing under Montana Rules 5(a)(2) and 55(b)(2).
- Self-represented litigants receive some latitude but remain responsible for complying with filing deadlines, fees, service requirements, and other procedural rules.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that due process operates within established procedural rules: proper service and an opportunity to respond may satisfy constitutional requirements even when a party later receives no notice of post-default proceedings. Litigants seeking to participate after default must first obtain relief from the default rather than simply tendering a late answer.
The Court designated the decision a memorandum opinion under its Internal Operating Rules. It is noncitable, does not serve as precedent, and reflects the application of settled law.