No. 81-305
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
MICHAEL T. REIDY,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
ANACONDA-DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District,
In and for the County of Deer Lodge
Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Haxby and Sweeney, Butte, Montana
Bradley L. Belke argued, Butte, Montana
For Respondents:
Poore, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, Butte, Montana
Douglas A. Buxbaum argued, Butte, Montana
Submitted: December 4, 1981
Decided: ylt
B
" Clerk
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
I n an a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t by a d e v e l o p e r of a
p r o j e c t e d s h o p p i n g mall complex a g a i n s t t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d c i t y -
c o u n t y g o v e r n m e n t o f Anaconda-Deer Lodge C o u n t y , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
g r a n t e d p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e d e v e l o p e r s t r i k i n g
h i s claim f o r l o s s o f a p e r c e n t a g e o f income and o w n e r s h i p o f t h e
p r o p o s e d complex. The d e v e l o p e r a p p e a l s . W e v a c a t e t h e summary
j udgment and remand f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .
I n J u n e , 1 9 7 8 , p l a i n t i f f M i c h a e l R e i d y and d e f e n d a n t
Anaconda-Deer Lodge C o u n t y e n t e r e d i n t o a n a g r e e m e n t f o r t h e d e v e -
l o p m e n t o f a s h o p p i n g m a l l complex i n a s i x - b l o c k a r e a o f down-
town A n a c o n d a , Montana.
I n November 1 9 7 9 , R e i d y f i l e d a n a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h o f
c o n t r a c t a g a i n s t Anaconda-Deer Lodge C o u n t y a l l e g i n g t h a t it
f a i l e d t o p u r c h a s e t h e l a n d f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t and t r a n s f e r i t
t o R e i d y f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n as r e q u i r e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t , and
f u r t h e r terminated the c o n t r a c t u n i l a t e r a l l y without j u s t cause .
H e s o u g h t damages o f $ 5 1 9 , 7 9 1 . 2 8 c o n s i s t i n g o f (1) c o s t s i n c u r r e d
i n a t t e m p t i n g to perform t h e c o n t r a c t ($19,791.28); ( 2 ) loss of
b u i l d e r ' s p r o f i t ( $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 ) ; and ( 3 ) l o s s o f h i s p e r c e n t a g e o f
income and o w n e r s h i p o f t h e complex ( $ 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) .
Anaconda-Deer Lodge C o u n t y moved f o r p a r t i a l summary
j u d g m e n t on t h e l a s t i t e m o f c l a i m e d damages c o n t e n d i n g t h a t
d a m a g e s c a n n o t be awarded f o r l o s t p r o f i t s o f a n u n e s t a b l i s h e d
business. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t
h o l d i n g t h a t no r e c o v e r y c o u l d be awarded f o r R e i d y l s a l l e g e d l o s s
o f a p e r c e n t a g e o f income and o w n e r s h i p of t h e c o m p l e t e d c o m p l e x .
On J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 , R e i d y a p p e a l e d from t h e p a r t i a l
summary j u d g m e n t . T h e r e a f t e r o n A u g u s t 1 8 R e i d y moved f o r cer-
t i £ i c a t i o n u n d e r R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ. P . , t h a t t h e p a r t i a l summary
j u d g m e n t was f i n a l i n n a t u r e so a s to r e n d e r it a p p e a l a b l e . On
August 1 9 , t h e District Court granted Rule 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s o r d e r o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n and i n
i t s meinorandum o p i n i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t it had c o n s i d e r e d t h e f a c -
t o r s e n u m e r a t e d i n Roy v . N e i b a u e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont --. r 610
P.2d 1 1 8 5 , 37 S t . R e p . 897. I t i n d i c a t e d t h a t R e i d y was e n t i t l e d
t o a f a v o r a b l e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r cer-
t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d be g r a n t e d b e c a u s e t h i s case was of s u c h a n
i n £ r e q u e n t and h a r s h n a t u r e t h a t c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d be g r a n t e d .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t items o f
c l a i m e d damages d i d n o t o v e r l a p ; t h a t t h e r e w a s no p o s s i b i l i t y o f
a s e t o f f ; t h a t t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t would n o t be o b l i g e d to con-
s i d e r t h i s i s s u e a s e c o n d t i m e ; t h a t it i n t e n d e d i t s r u l i n g to be
f i n a l ; and t h a t t h e d e l a y , d e t r i m e n t a l e c o n o m i c c o n s e q u e n c e s and
u n w a r r a n t e d a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n s e would be u n j u s t to R e i d y .
The i s s u e p o s i t e d by R e i d y i n t h i s a p p e a l is w h e t h e r dama-
g e s are a l l o w a b l e i n a b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t a c t i o n f o r l o s t p r o f i t s
of an unestablished business.
W e do n o t reach t h i s i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l . W w i l l not
e
p e r m i t c a s e s to be f r a g m e n t e d i n t h i s manner t o allow s u c c e s s i v e
a p p e a l s i n a s i n g l e c a s e where r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e
available. Such a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a n u n j u s t i f i a b l e waste of
s c a r c e j u d i c i a l t i m e and r e s o u r c e s .
W e r e p e a t w h a t w e s a i d i n Roy v . Neibauer, supra. If a
t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e s i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c e r t i f y i n g a n o r d e r of sum-
m a r y j u d g m e n t as f i n a l u n d e r R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t is
w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n t h e a p p e a l . Allis-Chalmers
C o r p . v . P h i l a d e l p h i a E l e c t r i c Co. ( 3 r d C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 5 2 1 F.2d
360. An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o r m a l l y c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g
f a c t o r s when c o n s i d e r i n g a R u l e 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n :
( 1 ) The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e a d j u d i c a t e d and unad-
j ud i c a t e d claims ;
( 2 ) The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e need f o r r e v i e w m i g h t or
m i g h t n o t be mooted b y f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ;
( 3 ) The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m i g h t be
o b l i g e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e same i s s u e a s e c o n d t i m e ;
(4) The p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e of a c l a i m or c o u n t e r c l a i m
which c o u l d r e s u l t i n a s e t o f f a g a i n s t t h e judgment s o u g h t t o be
made f i n a l ;
( 5 ) M i s c e l l a n e o u s f a c t o r s s u c h a s d e l a y , economic and
s o l v e n c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , s h o r t e n i n g t h e t i m e of t r i a l , t r i v i a l i t y
o f c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s , e x p e n s e and t h e l i k e . Roy v . N e i b a u e r ,
s u p r a ; S i n g e r Housing Co. v . Seven L a k e s V e n t u r e ( D . C o l o . 1 9 7 9 ) , 466
F.Supp. 369.
Here w e a r e a s k e d to h e a r , d e t e r m i n e and i s s u e a n o p i n i o n
o n w h e t h e r o n e o f t h r e e items o f damage is p e r m i s s i b l e b e f o r e a
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y f o r - damages h a s o c c u r r e d .
any While
i t is t r u e t h a t s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n a d v a n c e of t r i a l would
f i n a l l y s e t t l e t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h a t i t e m and m i g h t r e d u c e t r i a l
time, i t is e q u a l l y t r u e t h a t d e l a y i n g t h e t r i a l p e n d i n g d e t e r -
m i n a t i o n o f t h a t i s s u e on a p p e a l r e s u l t s i n u n d e s i r a b l e
consequences, v i z . , unwarranted d e l a y , a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s involving
f i l i n g f e e s , p r e p a r a t i o n o f b r i e f s , t r a v e l l i n g to t h e S t a t e
C a p i t o l f o r o r a l a r g u m e n t and a d d i t i o n a l a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e i r
s e r v i c e s on a p p e a l . C o n s i d e r a t i o n and b a l a n c i n g of t h e s e com-
p e t i n g f a c t o r s is r e q u i r e d u n d e r o u r o p i n i o n i n Roy v . N e i b a u e r ,
supra.
T h e i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l m i g h t w e l l be mooted by f u t u r e
d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t , a n o t h e r f a c t o r t o be con-
C
Roy.
s i d e r e d under - A f i n d i n g o f no l i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t
b y j u d g e or j u r y would c e r t a i n l y moot any i s s u e of damages.
R e a s o n a b l e a 1t e r n a t i v e s t o a f r a g m e n t e d a p p e a l a r e
available in t h i s case. The t r i a l c o u l d be b i f u r c a t e d w i t h t h e
i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y f i r s t determined b e f o r e a d d r e s s i n g any i s s u e
o f damages. Rule 4 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.; Monaco v. C e c c o n i ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
Mon t . , 589 P.2d 1 5 6 ; 36 S t . R e p . 113. I f t h e i s s u e of
damages were r e a c h e d i n e i t h e r a b i f u r c a t e d o r n o n b i f u r c a t e d
t r i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e c o u l d a d m i t a l l e v i d e n c e of damages
p r o v i s i o n a l l y s u b j e c t t o a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o l l o w i n g judgment.
U s e o f e i t h e r or b o t h a l t e r n a t i v e s m i g h t moot t h e i s s u e now on
appeal. I n a n y e v e n t it would e l i m i n a t e f r a g m e n t a t i o n of a s i n g l e c a s e
i n t o t w o o r more a p p e a l s and p e r m i t t h i s C o u r t to d e t e r m i n e a l l
i s s u e s i n one a p p e a l .
W e v a c a t e t h e p a r t i a l summary j udgment w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e
t o p e r m i t t h e District C o u r t to c o n s i d e r t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s .
For t h e foregoing r e a s o n s , we hold t h e D i s t r i c t Court
abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n under Rule 5 4 ( b ) ,
M.R.Civ.P., and remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r
proceed ings .
Chief J U S ~ ~ C ~
W e concur:
Justices [/