Martin v. Randono

No. 80-161
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981

W. D. MARTIN, a/k/a DON MARTIN
and ANN MARTIN, his wife,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,

GENE RANDONO, CAROL RANDONO,
his wife and GREAT FALLS FOREST
PRODUCTS INC. , a l t corp.
f.
Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis and Clark.
Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Joseph C. Engel, Butte, Montana
For Respondents:
C.F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana

Submitted on briefs: January 8, 1981
Decided: February 17, 1981
Filed: FEfi 1 7 156):

Clerk
Mr.J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,

Lewis & C l a r k County, d e c r e e i n g : (1) t h a t no damages b e

awarded d e f e n d a n t s f o r l o s t r e n t s from p r e m i s e s t h a t w e r e t h e

s u b j e c t of t h i s a c t i o n ; ( 2 ) t h a t no damages be awarded de-

f e n d a n t s f o r l o s s of s a l e of such p r e m i s e s ; ( 3 ) t h a t de-

f e n d a n t s n o t be awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s a s t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y

i n t h i s action; ( 4 ) t h a t W. A. Randono n o t be compensated f o r

t i m e personally spent i n recovering t h e property. Defendants

were awarded c o s t s t o t a l i n g $1,524.57 and n e i t h e r p a r t y ap-

p e a l s t h a t p a r t of t h e judgment.

The c a u s e was p r e v i o u s l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t . Martin v.

Randono ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. 321, 573 P.2d 1156, c o n t a i n s a

d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f a c t s .

I n 1972, t h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a n a c t i o n t o q u i e t t i t l e

on a twenty-two a c r e t r a c t of l a n d l o c a t e d s e v e n m i l e s e a s t

of L i n c o l n , Montana. T i t l e was c l a i m e d t h r o u g h a d v e r s e

possession. D e f e n d a n t s , t h e Randonos and G r e a t F a l l s F o r e s t

Products, Inc., ( a Randono f a m i l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n ) c o u n t e r -

c l a i m e d c o n t e n d i n g ownership and s o u g h t damages f o r w r o n g f u l

o c c u p a t i o n of p r o p e r t y .

I n 1975, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c r e e d t h e p l a i n t i f f s had

e s t a b l i s h e d t i t l e t o t h e t r a c t of l a n d by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n .

On a p p e a l , M a r t i n v . Randono, s u p r a , t h i s judgment was r e -

v e r s e d and remanded f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of damages on de-

fendants' counterclaim.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t o

e s t a b l i s h t h e amount of damages r e s u l t i n g from p l a i n t i f f s '

wrongful o c c u p a t i o n . H e a r i n g s were h e l d on March 9 and 1 2 ,

1979, and on June 26, 1979.
 A f t e r r e c e i v i n g a l l evidence, t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d

i t s judgment from which t h e d e f e n d a n t s a p p e a l .

The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l :

1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n n o t awarding damages

t o defendants f o r l o s t r e n t s ?

2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n n o t awarding damages

t o d e f e n d a n t s f o r l o s s of s a l e ?

3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n n o t awarding de-

fendants attorney fees?

4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n n o t awarding W . A .

Randono damages f o r t i m e expended a s c o s t s of r e c o v e r i n g t h e

property.

P l a i n t i f f s conceded l i a b i l i t y f o r damages, i f any, f o r

wrongful o c c u p a t i o n , i f t h e i r c l a i m of a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n was

n o t upheld. S i n c e a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n was h e l d n o t t o l i e ,

M a r t i n v . Randono, s u p r a , p l a i n t i f f s became l i a b l e f o r any

damages proven by d e f e n d a n t s .

D e f e n d a n t s ' measure of damage i s governed by s e c t i o n 27-

-1-318, MCA, which s t a t e s :

"Wrongful o c c u p a t i o n of r e a l p r o p e r t y . The d e t r i -
ment caused by t h e wrongful o c c u p a t i o n of r e a l
property . . . i s deemed t o be t h e v a l u e of t h e u s e
of t h e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e t i m e of such o c c u p a t i o n ,
n o t e x c e e d i n g f i v e y e a r s n e x t p r e c e d i n g t h e com-
mencement of t h e a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g t o e n f o r c e
t h e r i g h t t o damages, and t h e c o s t s , i f any, of
recovering t h e possession."

Defendants c l a i m e d f o r l o s t r e n t a l v a l u e . The p r o p e r t y

produced no income d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i n q u e s t i o n . I n an

a t t e m p t t o p r o v e damage, W . A . Randono, t e s t i f y i n g on b e h a l f

of t h e d e f e n d a n t s , gave v a r y i n g e s t i m a t e s of t h e r e n t a l v a l u e .

I n i n t e r r o g a t o r y answers d a t e d 1975, t h e l o s t r e n t a l v a l u e was

p l a c e d a t $1,500 p e r y e a r ; i n answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s sub-

m i t t e d i n 1979, t h e r e n t a l v a l u e was c l a i m e d t o b e $3,000 p e r

month, p l u s $50 t o $100 a month f o r some c a b i n s ; a t t h e t i m e of
t r i a l , Randono gave e s t i m a t e s r a n g i n g from $4,000 p e r y e a r t o

$10,000 p e r y e a r . One c o u l d o n l y s p e c u l a t e a b o u t what damage,

i f any, was s u f f e r e d . I n Cruse v . Clawson ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 137 Mont.

439, 352 P.2d 989, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : " ... -.
a p e r s o n may

fo l - it i s
r e c o v e r -r-o s s of p r o f i t s where - - shown ---
t h a t such l o s s

is
- t h e n a t u r a l and d i r e c t r e s u l t of t h e a c t of t h e d e f e n d a n t

complained of and t h a t such amount - c e r t a i n - - specu-
is and n o t

lative. " (Emphasis added. )

Defendants c o n t e n d t h a t proof of damages must be s p e c u l a -

t i v e t o a d e g r e e i n t h i s c a s e and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e owner

must b e a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h v a l u e . I n support, defendants c i t e

P r i t c h a r d Petroleum Co. v . Farmers Co-op O i l & Sup. Co. (1948),

1 2 1 Mont. 1, 190 P.2d 55, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e o w n e r ' s

o p i n i o n of r e n t a l v a l u e i s c o n t r o l l i n g . However, P r i t c h a r d i s

d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e because t h e c o u r t determined only t h a t an

o w n e r ' s t e s t i m o n y of t h e v a l u e of t h e u s e of p r o p e r t y was s u f -

f i c i e n t t o p r e c l u d e n o n s u i t by t h e opposing p a r t y . I t should

a l s o be n o t e d t h a t i n P r i t c h a r d t h e owner s e t f o r t h o n l y one

e s t i m a t e of t h e v a l u e of t h e r e n t a l , n o t f o u r , a s d i d W. A .

Randono i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . The burden of p r e p o n d e r a n c e i s

n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s a t i s f i e d by o f f e r i n g some a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e .

C r e d i b i l i t y i s a n e c e s s a r y i n g r e d i e n t of p r o b a t i v e p r o o f . We

c a n n o t s a y t h e t r i a l c o u r t was c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n f i n d i n g

d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o c a r r y t h e i r burden.

Defendants c l a i m t h e y l o s t a s a l e of t h e l a n d a s a r e s u l t

of p l a i n t i f f s ' wrongful o c c u p a t i o n . W. A. Randono t e s t i f i e d

t h a t a " f i r m commitment" had been r e a c h e d between h i m s e l f and

a p r o s p e c t i v e p u r c h a s e r , r e g a r d i n g a s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y b u t

t h e s a l e f a i l e d b e c a u s e of p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m of ownership.

Randono l a t e r t e s t i f i e d , however, t h a t t h e y were o n l y "nego-

t i a t i n g the deal." The p r o s p e c t i v e buyer t e s t i f i e d t h a t he
n o t s u r e whether t h e " d e a l " was t o c o v e r t e n o r twenty a c r e s .

Some t e s t i m o n y showed Randono and t h e p o t e n t i a l buyer were con-

s i d e r i n g a p u r c h a s e a t $2,000 p e r a c r e . However, o t h e r t e s t i -

mony showed t h e l a n d t o be worth l e s s t h a n $500 p e r a c r e a t

t h e time n e g o t i a t i o n s w e r e being conducted. Defendants a d m i t t e d

a t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t h a t t h e e n t i r e twenty-two a c r e

t r a c t , which was t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s d i s p u t e , was l a t e r s o l d

by d e f e n d a n t s t o a d i f f e r e n t buyer f o r $1,505 p e r a c r e .

Given t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o p r o v e

t h a t a s a l e was l o s t a s t h e r e s u l t of wrongful o c c u p a t i o n . Had

a s a l e been l o s t , e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t

d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o p r o v e damage.

W e t u r n now t o d e f e n d a n t s ' c l a i m f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s . The

g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t i n a b s e n c e of s t a t u t e o r c o n t r a c t , a t t o r n e y

f e e s w i l l n o t b e awarded. B i t n e y v . School D i s t . No. 4 4 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ,

167 Mont. 129, 535 P.2d 1273; N i k l e s v. Barnes ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153

Mont. 113, 454 P.2d 608.

Defendants c o n t e n d t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s s h o u l d be con-

strued a s ". . . c o s t s , i f any, of r e c o v e r i n g t h e p o s s e s s i o n

[of r e a l p r o p e r t y ] , " p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 27-1-318, MCA, or

i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e such f e e s s h o u l d b e awarded p u r s u a n t t o t h e

e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e espoused i n Foy v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176

Mont. 507, 580 P.2d 1 1 4 . W d e c l i n e t o f o l l o w e i t h e r con-
e

tention i n t h i s case.

The r u l e i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana. The s t a t u t o r y

t e r m " c o s t s " does n o t i n c l u d e a t t o r n e y f e e s . Higgins v .

Montana H o t e l Corp. (1979) , Mont. , 592 P.2d 930, 36

St.Rep. 531.

The c o u r t ' s e q u i t y power t o award a t t o r n e y f e e s was d i s -

c u s s e d i n J o s e p h R u s s e l L R l t y . c o . v . Kenneally ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

Mont. , 605 P.2d 1107:, 37 St.Rep. 57. This Court recog-
n i z e d t h e lower c o u r t ' s g e n e r a l e q u i t y power t o make a n i n j u r e d
I

p a r t y whole and t h a t i n 1 s o m e i s o l a t e d c a s e s , a t t o r n e y f e e s

c o u l d p r o p e r l y come w i t h i n t h a t power. However, t h e c o u r t

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s u c h a n l a w a r d was w i t h i n t h e lower c o u r t ' s

d i s c r e t i o n ( c i t i n g Foy V. Anderson, s u p r a ) and t h a t a b s e n t a n

a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , t h b lower c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n would

stand.

A s i n Russell Rlty.
,
-
- Co., s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s no

a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e lower c o u r t i n n o t a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y

f e e s t o t h e defendants.

F i n a l l y , d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t W. A . Randono s h o u l d b e

compensated f o r t h e t i m e h e s p e n t i n r e c o v e r i n g t h e p r o p e r t y

including t i m e spent i n preparing f o r t r i a l . Defendants r e l y

on s e c t i o n 27-1-317, MCA, and s e c t i o n 2 7 - 1 - 3 2 0 ( 1 ) , MCA. De-

f e n d a n t s ' r e l i a n c e upon t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s i s m i s p l a c e d . Sec-

t i o n 27-1-317, MCA, p r o v i d e s a measure o f damages o n l y where

damages a r e n o t e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d f o r e l s e w h e r e i n t h e c o d e .

S e c t i o n 27-1-318, MCA, g o v e r n s measure o f damages i n i n s t a n c e s

o f w r o n g f u l o c c u p a t i o n apd t h e r e f o r e , s e c t i o n 27-1-317, MCA, is

not applicable. S e c t i o n 27-1-320(1), MCA, i s applicable only

t o c o n v e r s i o n s o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , which i s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o

the case a t bar.

The p e r s o n a l t i m e i n v e s t e d by W . A. Randono i s n o t a

" c o s t " a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 27-1-318, MCA, and t h e r e f o r e ,

not recoverable.

The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W e concur:

Chief J u s t i c e