No. 13250
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1976
LESTER J. HELLER,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
ARTHUR S. OSBURNSEN and
LUCILLE F. OSBURNSEN,
Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable LeRoy I,. McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellants :
Johnson and F o s t e r , Lewistown, Montana
Robert Johnson a r g u e d , Lewistown, Montana
F o r Respondent:
Dockery and P a r r i s h , Lewistown, Montana
Bradley B. P a r r i s h a r g u e d , Lewistown, Montana
Submitted: March 3 , 1976
Decided : &"C! 12 lQJF
PER CURIAM:
T h i s i s a motion t o d i s m i s s a p p e l l a n t s ' a p p e a l from
t h e d e n i a l o f a motion t o q u a s h a w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n , i s s u e d
by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , F e r g u s County.
T h i s c a s e h a s been b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on two p r e v i o u s
occasions: Heller v . Osburnsen, 162 Mont. 1 8 2 , 510 P.2d 13
( H e l l e r I ) ; and Heller v . Osburnsen, Mont . , 541 P.2d
1032, 32 St.Rep. 1066 ( H e l l e r 11). Because t h e f a c t s of t h e
case w e r e s e t o u t i n t h e p r e v i o u s Heller d e c i s i o n s , it i s n o t
necessary t o again set o u t i n d e t a i l t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n . Since
t h e l a s t a p p e a l M r s . Heller h a s d i e d , t h u s M r . Heller r e m a i n s
the sole plaintiff.
T h i s i n v o l v e d a c t i o n a r i s e s o u t of t h e s a l e of r a n c h
p r o p e r t i e s by H e l l e r t o Osburnsens. The f i r s t a p p e a l b e f o r e
t h i s C o u r t , d e c i d e d May 7 , 1973, i n v o l v e d a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment
a c t i o n b r o u g h t by Heller t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s and
d u t i e s a s t o the ranch s a l e transaction. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
judgment w a s a f f i r m e d i n Heller I . I n t h e second a p p e a l , d e c i d e d
O c t o b e r 30, 1975, t h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l a c c o u n t -
i n g approved by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and found t h a t s u c h a c c o u n t -
ing d i d n o t v i o l a t e due process, ( H e l l e r 11).
The a c c o u n t i n g a f f i r m e d i n H e l l e r I1 found Osburnsens
w e r e l i a b l e t o Heller i n t h e amount o f $16,831.42, together with
i n t e r e s t on t h e sum of $14,586.03 a t t h e r a t e o f 5 1 / 2 % p e r annum
from J a n u a r y 1, 1974, u n t i l p a i d .
I n November 1975, H e l l e r ' s a t t o r n e y s e n t a l e t t e r t o
O s b u r n s e n s ' a t t o r n e y demanding t h e payment o f $23,608.42. This
amount i n c l u d e d t h e $16,831.42 awarded t o H e l l e r by t h e September
11, 1974 a c c o u n t i n g , p l u s i n t e r e s t of $1,604.46 a s d i r e c t e d i n t h e
a c c o u n t i n g , p l u s underpayments on t h e r a n c h p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t
f o r 1974-1975 t o t a l i n g $5,174.37.
I n response t o t h i s letter t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e
r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s had a d i s c u s s i o n r e s u l t i n g i n O s b u r n s e n s '
a t t o r n e y drawing up a s t i p u l a t i o n , which was s i g n e d by b o t h
attorneys.
The s t i p u l a t i o n p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e b e g i n -
n i n g d e f e r r e d b a l a n c e o f t h e p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t w a s $84,850 and
r e q u e s t e d t h e escrow a g e n t t o compute e a c h a n n u a l payment t o
date, with i n t e r e s t . The escrow a g e n t w a s a s k e d t o d e d u c t from
e a c h payment t h e amount a c t u a l l y p a i d by Osburnsens. Osburnsens
would t h e n pay Heller t h e sum of a l l s h o r t a g e s , p l u s i n t e r e s t
from t h e a c t u a l s h o r t a g e d a t e .
The escrow a g e n t , F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of Lewistown, s t a t e d
it c o u l d n o t comply w i t h t h e s t i p u l a t i o n r e q u e s t s . Osburnsens'
a t t o r n e y w r o t e t h e bank a s k i n g f o r t h e payments a c t u a l l y made
by them, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e b a n k ' s r e c o r d s , and t h e payment s c h e d u l e
according t o t h e bank's records. Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y asked f o r
t h e bank r e c o r d s f o r t h e payments a s a c t u a l l y a p p l i e d , n o t a s
t h e y s h o u l d have been a p p l i e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
judgment and a c c o u n t i n g , b o t h of which w e r e a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t .
O s b u r n s e n s ' a t t o r n e y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e bank r e c o r d s t o
r e a c h t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e y owed Heller $152.00, rather than
t h e $23,608.42 demanded by H e l l e r . On November 20, 1975, Osburn-
s e n s ' a t t o r n e y o f f e r e d t h i s amount a s f u l l s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e a c t i o n
and d e b t .
On November 2 1 , 1975, H e l l e r ' s a t t o r n e y d e c l a r e d t h e
o f f e r o f $152.00 a n i n s u l t and i n d i c a t e d h e c o n s i d e r e d t h e s t i p u -
l a t i o n v o i d and o f no f o r c e o r e f f e c t ; c l a i m i n g O s b u r n s e n s '
a t t o r n e y w a s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e bank r e c o r d s a s though h e had won
both appeals t o t h i s Court. A s i x t y d a y n o t i c e and demand p u r -
suant t o t h e d e f a u l t c l a u s e of t h e ranch purchase c o n t r a c t w a s
included i n t h a t letter.
On December 29, 1975, t h e c l e r k o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
issued an execution d i r e c t e d t o t h e county s h e r i f f , asking t h e
s h e r i f f t o l e v y o n O s b u r n s e n s ' p r o p e r t y i n t h e amount o f
$23,610.25, plus costs.
Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y f i l e d a motion t o quash t h e e x e c u t i o n
o n December 30, 1975. On t h e same d a y h e s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e
c l e r k o f c o u r t and t h e s h e r i f f warning t h a t i f t h e w r i t w e r e
found t o b e w r o n g f u l l y i s s u e d , O s b u r n s e n s would h o l d e a c h re-
s p o n s i b l e f o r any r e s u l t i n g damages.
On December 31, 1975, H e l l e r ' s a t t o r n e y f i l e d a n answer
t o t h e motion t o quash.
On J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1976, t h e s h e r i f f e x e c u t e d on O s b u r n s e n s '
bank a c c o u n t i n t h e amount o f $23,610.25.
On J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1976, a f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o
q u a s h , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o q u a s h on t h e g r o u n d s
t h e s t i p u l a t i o n was ambiguous and t h e bank o f f i c e r a p p a r e n t l y
r e f u s e d t o t r y t o c a r r y it o u t .
Osburnsens a p p e a l e d t h i s o r d e r on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1976.
A p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t a y e x e c u t i o n on J a n u a r y
21, 1976, A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h i s m o t i o n r e s u l t i n g i n a s t a y
o r d e r and p r o v i d i n g t h e money i n t h e s h e r i f f ' s hands be deemed
a s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r t a k i n g f o r s u p e r s e d e a s and c o s t s on a p p e a l .
Respondent r a i s e d two i s s u e s on h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r
c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s C o u r t .
I. A r e t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n a p p e l l a n t s ' a p p e a l res
judicata?
2. Was a p p e l l a n t s ' a p p e a l t a k e n w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l o r
r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s , b u t f o r p u r p o s e s o f d e l a y o n l y , whereby dam-
a g e s s h o u l d be a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t s p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 ,
M.R.App.Civ.P.?
T h i s C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d , i n t h e two p r i o r d e c i s i o n s i n
t h i s m a t t e r , t h a t a p p e l l a n t s owe r e s p o n d e n t $16,831.42, plus
interest. Approximately $5,000.00 i s due r e s p o n d e n t a s under-
payments on t h e r a n c h p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e
September 11, 1974 a c c o u n t i n g , a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t i n Heller 11.
N s t i p u l a t i o n o r agreement s i g n e d by t h e r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s
o
c a n change t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , it e x i s t s u n t i l m o d i f i e d , amended,
o r o v e r r u l e d by t h i s C o u r t .
The award t o r e s p o n d e n t i s res j u d i c a t a . The g e n e r a l
r u l e s f o r res j u d i c a t a a r e s e t o u t i n 46 Am J u r 2d, Judgments,
"A f i n a l judgment on t h e m e r i t s , r e n d e r e d by a
c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n , i s c o n c l u s i v e
a s t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r p r i v i e s ,
and a s t o them c o n s t i t u t e s a n a b s o l u t e b a r t o a
s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e same c l a i m ,
demand, and c a u s e of a c t i o n * * *. The judgment
p u t s a n end t o t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n which c a u s e
c a n n o t a q a i n be b r o u q h t i n t o l i t i q a t i o n between
t h e p a r t i e s upon any ground o r f o r any purpose
- -
whatever, i n t h e a b s e n c e o f some f a c t o r i n v a l i -
d a t i n g t h e judgment." (Emphasis added.)
The c r u x of a p p e l l a n t s ' argument on a p p e a l , i s t h a t t h e
w r i t of e x e c u t i o n was i m p r o p e r l y i s s u e d as t h e amount d u e re-
s p o n d e n t from a p p e l l a n t s was s e t t l e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e s t i p u l a -
tion. While paying l i p s e r v i c e t o t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , and t h e a c t i o n s
of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h i s C o u r t , a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y c o n t e n d s
t h i s m a t t e r h a s been s e t t l e d f o r $152.00, thereby wholly ignoring
t h i s C o u r t ' s a f f i r m a n c e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment and a c c o u n t -
ing.
A s t i p u l a t i o n cannot i n t e r f e r e with t h e d u t i e s , functions,
o r d e c i s i o n s of t h i s C o u r t , o r any o t h e r c o u r t . 7 3 Am J u r 2d,
S t i p u l a t i o n s , §4 and S 1 1 . Regardless of t h e language of t h e
s t i p u l a t i o n , and a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e o f ,
a p p e l l a n t s owe r e s p o n d e n t t h e amounts d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e September
11, 1974 a c c o u n t i n g , a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t , H e l l e r 11.
Any s t i p u l a t i o n which i s i n t e r p r e t e d a s s e t t l i n g a v a l i d
judgment i n e x c e s s o f $16,000 f o r t h e sum o f $152 i s v o i d a s
being absurd. The s t i p u l a t i o n i s o b v i o u s l y ambiguous o r s u c h
an a b s u r d i t y c o u l d n o t r e s u l t t h e r e b y . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
p r o p e r l y found i t s o .
A p p e l l a n t s a l s o r a i s e a q u e s t i o n of v i o l a t i o n of due
process i n t h e i r appeal. W e f i n d no v i o l a t i o n of d u e p r o c e s s
a s s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s were f o l l o w e d , and no p r e j u d i c e re-
s u l t e d t o a p p e l l a n t s , due t o t h e h e a r i n g which was a f f o r d e d
them.
W e need n o t go i n t o t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e w r i t of exe-
c u t i o n e x c e p t t o s a y a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n i s a p r o p e r means of
e n f o r c i n g a money judgment. S e c t i o n 93-5805, R.C.M. 1947;
Nepstad v . E a s t Chicago O i l Assn., Inc., 96 Mont. 1 8 3 , 29 P.2d
A p p e l l a n t s q u e s t i o n t h e $5,000.00 e x c e s s i n t h e e x e c u t i o n .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t speak t o t h i s i s s u e i n i t s d e n i a l of
t h e motion t o quash. An e x c e s s i v e judgment i s n o t p e r s e v o i d ,
it i s m e r e l y v o i d a b l e u n l e s s f r a u d u l e n t i n t e n t i s p r o v e n . The
p r o p e r p r a c t i c e t o remedy t h i s matter i s a motion t o s e t a s i d e
t h e e x c e s s , n o t move t o q u a s h t h e w r i t . 33 C.J.S. Executions
A p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y i s a t t e m p t i n g t o u s e a n a p p e a l of
t h e d e n i a l o f a motion t o q u a s h a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n a s a v e h i c l e
t o once a g a i n r a i s e a q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h i s C o u r t ' s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i n H e l l e r I and H e l l e r 11.
I n L i b i n v . H u f f i n e , 124 Mont. 361, 363, 224 P.2d 1 4 4 ,
t h i s Court s t a t e d :
"Where a s h e r e a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t h a s u n q u a l i f i e d l y
a f f i r m e d a judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , it would
o b v i o u s l y and u n n e c e s s a r i l y p r o t r a c t l i t i g a t i o n
t o a l l o w f u r t h e r o r s u c c e s s i v e a p p e a l s from t h e
judgment s o a f f i r m e d . Such s u c c e s s i v e a p p e a l s i n
f a c t would be a p p e a l s a t t e m p t e d t o be t a k e n from
t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i t s e l f . "
See a l s o , Gray v. B o h a r t , 1 3 1 Mont. 522, 312 P.2d 529.
In t h e i n s t a n t appeal, appellants' attorney i s i n d i r e c t l y
a p p e a l i n g t h e two e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s i n a n a p p a r e n t a t t e m p t t o
d e l a y payment of t h e awarded sums t o r e s p o n d e n t . Such a n a p p e a l
i s f r i v o l o u s and w i t h o u t m e r i t .
T h i s i s a p r o p e r c a s e t o g r a n t a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e
a p p e a l a s f r i v o l o u s and w i t h o u t m e r i t . Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P.,
states:
"Damages f o r a p p e a l w i t h o u t m e r i t . I f t h e supreme
c o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d from t h e r e c o r d and t h e p r e s e n -
t a t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l , t h a t t h e same w a s t a k e n
without s u b s t a n t i a l o r reasonable grounds, b u t
a p p a r e n t l y f o r p u r p o s e s of d e l a y o n l y , such dam-
a g e s may be a s s e s s e d on d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f
a s under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e deemed p r o p e r . "
I n Weinheimer v . S c o t t , 143 Mont. 243, 388 P.2d 790,
a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y i n t h e i n s t a n t case, w e
quoted L i b i n v. H u f f i n e , s u p r a , w i t h a p p r o v a l and imposed
damages o f $500 i n f a v o r of r e s p o n d e n t . These damages w e r e
imposed on a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y f o r a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l . These
damages w e r e t h e c o s t of t r a v e l , r e s e a r c h , and p r e p a r a t i o n t o
answer t h e f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l .
I n Farmers S t a t e Bank of Conrad v . I v e r s o n and Bouma,
1 6 2 Mont. 130, 1 3 3 , 509 P.2d 839, t h i s C o u r t a s s e s s e d damages o f
$1,000 a s a " r e s t r a i n t on t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f p e t i t i o n e r s and
appellants."
The motion of r e s p o n d e n t t o d i s m i s s a p p e l l a n t s t a p p e a l
i s hereby g r a n t e d . Damages under Rule 32 a r e a s s e s s e d i n t h e
amount of $1,000.
Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , d i s t r i c t judge, s a t i n place
of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n .