April 5 2011
DA 10-0254
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2011 MT 60
TIMOTHY R. OSMAN and
DAVID KRONE,
Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v.
PHOENIX R. CAVALIER,
REDHAWKSFEATHER BLANKS,
TOM ROBERTS and DEBBIE ROBERTS,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Musselshell, Cause No. DV 08-63
Honorable Randal I. Spaulding, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
Redhawksfeather Blanks, self represented, Roundup, Montana
Phoenix Cavalier, self represented, Roundup, Montana
For Appellees:
Robert W. Snively, Attorney at Law, Hardin, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 20, 2011
Decided: April 5, 2011
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Appellants Phoenix Cavalier and Redhawksfeather Blanks (“Defendants”) appeal
from an order of the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Musselshell County, awarding
punitive damages to Appellees Timothy Osman and David Krone (“Plaintiffs”) in the
amount of their attorney fees in an easement dispute.
¶2 We review the following issue on appeal:
¶3 Whether the District Court properly awarded Plaintiffs punitive damages in the
amount of their attorney fees based on Defendants’ alleged malicious conduct.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2
¶4 Plaintiffs and Defendants own, or have a property interest in, neighboring real
property in a rural subdivision in Musselshell County, Montana. A timber company, Timber
Tracts, Inc., formerly owned all the property. The deeds from Timber Tracts, Inc. explicitly
reserved an easement road, now called Bannock Lane, across Defendants’ property to access
Plaintiffs’ properties.
¶5 Timber Tracts, Inc. reserved “a perpetual easement to a full width of 60 feet across all
roads as now constructed and/or as shown in detail on the Certificate of Survey No. 1974-3.”
Certificate of Survey No. 1974-3 shows an existing road in substantially the same location as
the road now known as Bannock Lane that Plaintiffs consistently have used to access their
properties. Defendants placed posts and other obstructions on Bannock Lane, despite the
recorded easement, in order to block travel across the Defendants’ property to Plaintiffs’
properties.
¶6 Plaintiffs brought an action in the District Court to enforce the easement and to
prevent Defendants from blocking the road. Plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered
damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct and asked the court to award compensatory
damages, attorney fees, and punitive damages. The court held a trial and found that
Plaintiffs had a right to use the easement based upon the recorded deeds from Timber Tracts,
Inc. The court concluded that there were no demonstrable compensatory damages, but
awarded punitive damages to Plaintiffs in the amount of their attorney fees to compensate
them for the Defendants’ malicious and unreasonable conduct. Defendants appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
3
¶7 We review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law
for correctness. Wilson v. State, 2010 MT 278, ¶ 16, 358 Mont. 438, ___ P.3d ___. The
district court may award punitive damages in accordance with §§ 27-1-220, and -221, MCA,
at its discretion. This Court conducts plenary review of the district court’s application of the
statutory requirements. Wilson, ¶ 16. We will reverse a district court’s award of punitive
damages for an abuse of discretion. Emmerson v. Walker, 2010 MT 167, ¶¶ 39-40, 357
Mont. 166, 236 P.3d 598.
DISCUSSION
¶8 We must address one preliminary matter. Defendants present several undeveloped
arguments. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing and have no right to use the
easement across Defendants’ property. Defendants fail to support their position on these
issues with a reasoned argument. Parties must present a reasoned argument to advance their
position. M. R. App. P. 12(1)(f). It is not this Court’s job to “conduct legal research on a
party’s behalf, to guess as to a party’s precise position, or to develop legal analysis that may
lend support to that position.” Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 MT 246, ¶ 42, 358
Mont. 193, 244 P.3d 321 (citations omitted). We will not consider unsupported issues or
arguments. Id. We affirm the District Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs possess valid
easements across Defendants’ property.
4
¶9 Whether the District Court properly awarded Plaintiffs punitive damages in the
amount of their attorney fees based on Defendants’ alleged malicious conduct.
¶10 Plaintiffs sought punitive damages based on their claim that the Defendants’ actions
constituted intentional, unlawful, and malicious conduct. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs
failed to prove punitive damages with clear and convincing evidence and that the court failed
to state clearly the reasons for the punitive damages award pursuant to § 27-1-221, MCA.
¶11 Section 27-1-221, MCA, provides that a court may award reasonable punitive
damages if the court finds the defendant guilty of actual malice. A defendant acts with
malice if the defendant “has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a
high probability of injury to the plaintiff,” and proceeds to act in disregard or indifference to
the high probability of injury. Section 27-1-221(2), MCA.
¶12 The court made the following findings at the conclusion of the trial: (1) Defendant
Redhawksfeather Blanks had placed posts and other obstructions on the easement thereby
restricting travel on the road, (2) Defendants had no right to interfere with Plaintiffs’ use of
the road, (3) Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that they had no legal right
to obstruct Plaintiffs’ use of the road, (4) Defendants intentionally, unlawfully, and
maliciously had obstructed the road, and (5) Defendants’ malicious conduct entitled
Plaintiffs to punitive damages. The record submitted for our review supports the court’s
findings of facts and conclusions of law.
¶13 A plaintiff must prove punitive damages with clear and convincing evidence. Section
27-1-221(5), MCA. Plaintiffs presented numerous exhibits at trial that establish through
5
deeds and maps that an easement exists across Defendants’ property. Plaintiffs also
presented photographs that depicted the easement and the Defendants’ obstructions on
Bannock Lane. The court minutes summarize the trial proceedings and indicate that
Plaintiffs presented five witnesses at trial. The witnesses testified in regards to the
easements’ existence and the Defendants’ conduct obstructing the road. The record
establishes that Plaintiffs presented clear and convincing evidence to support their claim for
both compensatory and punitive damages. See Finstad v. W.R. Grace & Co., 2000 MT 228,
¶¶ 19-20, 301 Mont. 240, 8 P.3d 778. Defendants have failed to establish otherwise.
¶14 This matter did not present complicated legal issues. The fact that Plaintiffs
possessed a valid easement over Defendants’ property appeared relatively straightforward in
the record. We conclude that the record supports the court’s findings that Defendants knew
or should have known: (1) that they had no legal right to obstruct the easement, and (2) that
blocking the easement would create a high probability of injury to Plaintiffs. Section 27-1-
221(1)-(2), MCA. Clear and convincing evidence in the record likewise supports the court’s
finding that Defendants acted in disregard or indifference to the high probability of injury to
Plaintiffs. Id.
¶15 A court may not award punitive damages as a substitute for attorneys’ fees where an
award of fees otherwise would not be justified. Estate of Pruyn v. Axmen Propane, Inc.,
2009 MT 448, ¶ 72, 354 Mont. 208, 223 P.3d 845. Rather, when a judge awards punitive
damages, the judge must state clearly the reasons for making the award pursuant to § 27-1-
221(7)(b), MCA. Ward v. Vibrasonic Laboratories, Inc., 236 Mont. 314, 320-21, 769 P.2d
6
1229, 1233-34 (1989). The court must show that it considered the nature and extent of the
defendant’s wrongdoing, the defendant’s intent, the amount of actual damages awarded, the
defendant’s net worth, any previous damage awards based on the same wrongful act, and any
other relevant circumstances. Section 27-1-221(7)(b)(i)-(ix), MCA.
¶16 Although the court did not state specifically that it made findings pursuant to the
above statute, the court made partial findings in accordance with the statute. The court
clearly stated the Defendants’ intent—malicious. Section 27-1-221(7)(b)(iii), MCA. The
court also discussed the nature and the extent of the Defendants’ wrongdoing. Section 27-1-
221(7)(b)(i)-(ii), MCA. The court did not state clearly the other factors listed in § 27-1-
221(7)(b), MCA, and nothing in the record indicates that the court considered all of the
statutory factors. Although not all of the factors may apply to this case, the court at least
must demonstrate that it considered all of the factors listed in § 27-1-221(7)(b), MCA, and
the reasons the factors justify an award of punitive damages. Ward, 236 Mont. at 320-21,
769 P.2d at 1233-34.
¶17 A district court, having heard the evidence and observed the witnesses, sits in the best
position to determine whether the facts of a case justify an award of punitive damages.
Emmerson, ¶¶ 39-40. Although the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law presented
to this Court might support an award of punitive damages, the District Court must follow the
statutory procedures and make the necessary findings pursuant to § 27-1-221(7)(b), MCA,
before this Court can consider such an award. Ward, 236 Mont. at 320-21, 769 P.2d at 1233-
7
34. We remand to the District Court to make the appropriate findings in accordance with
§ 27-1-221(7)(b), MCA, based on the evidence presented by the parties at trial.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
8