ho. L3L75
IN THh SUPKbHE X U K T OF THE STAL'E 'JF MON'l'kNA
1976
LKMA TAYLOR,
P i a i n r i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
THE ANALONIIA FEDEKAL CKLDLT LJNION
AND CHARLES McLEAN i n d i v i d u a l l y
and i t s a g e n t ,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal frorn: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable James D. F r e e b o u r n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Zounsel of Record :
For A p p e l l a n t :
Edward D. Yelsa a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana
For Respondents:
C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana
Gerald R. A l l e n a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
Submitted: A p r i l 21, 1976
Decided : %$\ 2 & 1976
F i l e d : ..!
,; -;(Fp
Hon. Robert J. Nelson, D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f M r .
Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , D e e r Lodge
County, t h e Honorable James D . F r e e b o u r n , p r e s i d i n g .
P l a i n t i f f , I r m a Taylor, f i l e d an a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , D e e r Lodge County, on J u n e 2 6 , 1975. Count One o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t C h a r l e s McLean, a g e n t o f t h e
Anaconda F e d e r a l C r e d i t Union, promised T a y l o r t h a t p u r c h a s e r s
(Hodacks) would have enough e q u i t y t o be a b l e t o borrow money
from d e f e n d a n t C r e d i t Union t o pay a $3,000 p r o m i s s o r y n o t e from
Hodacks t o T a y l o r . The b a l a n c e of Count One e s s e n t i a l l y a l l e g e s
t h a t T a y l o r had t o h i r e a n a t t o r n e y t o p u r s u e h e r r e m e d i e s a g a i n s t
Hodacks t o c o l l e c t t h e n o t e , and f u r t h e r a t t e m p t s t o impose a
d u t y upon d e f e n d a n t s f o r p l a i n t i f f ' s l o s s upon h e r s a l e t o de-
6~dci
ck/
f e n d a n t C r e d i t Union a t d i s c o u n t o f a n o t h e r o f Hod&3' notes i n
t h e sum of $1,500 and a l s o f o r h e r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . Taylor al-
l e g e d $800 a s s p e c i a l damages and $50,000 a s g e n e r a l damages under
Count One.
Count Two a l l e g e s T a y l o r had a c o n t r a c t w i t h Hodacks f o r
t h e payment of $3,000. I t i s a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t s McLean and t h e
C r e d i t Union i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t by u s i n g t h e p r e m i s e s
p u r c h a s e d by Hodacks from T a y l o r a s s e c u r i t y f o r t h e o r i g i n a l
l o a n made t o Hodacks of $4,000, which money was used a s t h e down-
payment on t h e p u r c h a s e of t h e p r e m i s e s , and i n making f u r t h e r
l o a n s t o t h e Hodacks on t h e same s e c u r i t y , A s damages under
Count Two, T a y l o r a l l e g e s s p e c i a l damages o f $800, g e n e r a l dam-
a g e s of $50,000 and exemplary damages of $70,000.
Count Three of t h e c o m p l a i n t i s a r e p e t i t i o n of t h e a l -
l e g a t i o n s made i n Count Two.
Defendants McLean and C r e d i t Union moved t o d i s m i s s t h e
c o m p l a i n t and t h e motion was t r e a t e d a s o n e f o r summary judgment
by c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
g r a n t e d judgment f o r McLean and t h e C r e d i t Union. Taylor appealed
from t h e o r d e r and judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
The f a c t s a r e a d m i t t e d . T a y l o r i s a r e s i d e n t of Anaconda,
Montana. The C r e d i t Union i s a c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d under t h e
laws of t h e United S t a t e s and d o i n g b u s i n e s s i n Montana, and
C h a r l e s McLean i s t h e t r e a s u r e r of t h e C r e d i t Union.
On May 7 , 1969, T a y l o r a g r e e d t o s e l l c e r t a i n r e a l prop-
e r t y l o c a t e d w e s t o f Anaconda t o S t e p h e n and P a t r i c i a Hodack.
The a g r e e d p u r c h a s e p r i c e f o r t h e p r o p e r t y was $7,000 and it
i s n o t c l e a r whether o r n o t a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t of s a l e was
drafted. The agreement between T a y l o r and Hodacks p r o v i d e d f o r
a downpayment of $4,000. The r e m a i n i n g $3,000 was p a y a b l e , w i t h -
o u t i n t e r e s t , 4 y e a r s from May 7, 1969. The p r o m i s s o r y n o t e w a s
e x e c u t e d by t h e Hodacks and d e l i v e r e d t o T a y l o r .
T a y l o r d i d n o t t a k e any s t e p s t o s e c u r e h e r i n t e r e s t
a s a c r e d i t o r upon t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y . The Hodacks borrowed from
t h e C r e d i t Union t h r o u g h i t s d u l y a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t , McLean, t h e
sum of $4,664.83, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e a g r e e d downpayment p l u s Hodacks'
s h a r e of t a x e s on t h e p r o p e r t y s o l d . T h i s check w a s i s s u e d on
May 8 , 1969 and d e l i v e r e d t o p l a i n t i f f by Hodacks. In return
f o r t h e l o a n t o Hodacks, t h e C r e d i t Union f i l e d a mortgage upon
t h e p r o p e r t y s o l d f o r t h e amount o f t h e l o a n . T h i s mortgage
w a s d u l y r e c o r d e d i n Deer Lodge County.
The p r o m i s s o r y n o t e r u n n i n g from t h e Hodacks t o T a y l o r
f e l l d u e on May 7 , 1973. The Hodacks d i d n o t make payment upon
t h e n o t e and f e l l i n t o d e f a u l t . Due t o t h i s d e f a u l t , T a y l o r
sued Hodacks and t h e C r e d i t Union f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t . A
s e t t l e m e n t was r e a c h e d i n which t h e C r e d i t Union a g r e e d t o l o a n
Hodacks a n a d d i t i o n a l $1,500 t o be p a i d t o T a y l o r . I t was a l s o
a g r e e d Hodacks would e x e c u t e a new p r o m i s s o r y n o t e f o r $1,500
p a y a b l e i n 3 y e a r s o r i n 1977. Under t h e new agreement, T a y l o r
t o o k a second mortgage on t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y .
A check f o r $1,500 was d e l i v e r e d t o T a y l o r by h e r a t t o r -
ney and d e f e n d a n t Hodack, a s was t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e f o r $1,500
and t h e c a s e w a s s e t t l e d . I n November 1974, t h e C r e d i t Union
a g r e e d t o e x t e n d Hodacks' l i n e of c r e d i t and p a i d Hodacks t h e
sum o f $1,500 which w a s u s e d by them t o pay o f f t h e second prom-
i s s o r y note running t o Taylor. I n r e t u r n f o r t h i s payment, T a y l o r
e x e c u t e d a " S a t i s f a c t i o n of Mortgage and R e l e a s e u t o t h e Hodacks.
The s o l e b a s i s f o r T a y l o r ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t McLean and t h e
C r e d i t Union i s a n o r a l s t a t e m e n t made by McLean, a p p a r e n t l y t o
p l a i n t i f f , a t t h e t i m e t h e downpayment on t h e p r e m i s e s w a s made
and T a y l o r a c c e p t e d t h e $3,000 unsecured n o t e f o r t h e b a l a n c e
d u e , t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e n o t e became due May 7 ,
1973 Hodacks would have s u f f i c i e n t e q u i t y i n t h e p r e m i s e s f o r
them t o borrow more money from t h e C r e d i t Union t o pay t h e n o t e .
The a d m i t t e d l y g r a t u i t o u s o r a l s t a t e m e n t made by McLean
was n o t a promise t o answer f o r t h e o b l i g a t i o n of t h e Hodacks
and was n o t a g u a r a n t y o r o f s u r e t y s h i p a s t h e same a r e d e f i n e d
by Montana's c o d e s . McLeanls s t a t e m e n t n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s u p p o s e d ,
and o f n e c e s s i t y had t o be u n d e r s t o o d by anyone who h e a r d i t ,
t h a t i f n o t h i n g happened t o t h e Hodacks, and i f t h e y made t h e i r
payments on t h e mortgage which t h e C r e d i t Union w a s t a k i n g on
t h e p r e m i s e s , and i f n o t h i n g happened t o t h e p r e m i s e s , t h e Hodacks
i n f o u r y e a r s would have s u f f i c i e n t e q u i t y i n t h e p r e m i s e s f o r
t h e C r e d i t Union t o make a f u r t h e r l o a n t o Hodacks t o pay t h e i r
promissory n o t e t o Taylor f o r t h e balance of t h e purchase p r i c e .
Such s t a t e m e n t d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a l e g a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e promise
t o l o a n Hodacks' t h e money.
With r e g a r d t o Counts Two and Three o f P l a i n t i f f ' s
c l a i m , t o t h e e f f e c t t h e C r e d i t Union i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t
between T a y l o r and t h e Hodacks b e c a u s e it t o o k a m o r t g a g e on
t h e p r e m i s e s when it l o a n e d Hodacks t h e downpayment, and t h e r e -
a f t e r b e f o r e t h e d u e d a t e o f Hodacks' n o t e t o T a y l o r f o r t h e
b a l a n c e o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e , l o a n e d t h e Hodacks a n a d d i t i o n a l
sum o r sums which was s e c u r e d by t h e m o r t g a g e , s u c h a c t s s t a n d -
i n g a l o n e do n o t c o n s t i t u t e i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t . The
a c t s o f t h e C r e d i t Union w e r e l e g a l a c t s , f o r which it was
o r g a n i z e d and a u t h o r i z e d t o d o . Standing alone, t h e acts do n o t
g i v e rise t o any presumption o r i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e a c t s w e r e
done t o i n d u c e o r c a u s e Hodacks n o t t o pay t h e i r n o t e . The
a c t i o n of i n t e r f e r e n c e with c o n t r a c t r i g h t s i s a t o r t a c t i o n ,
t o r t meaning w r o n g f u l o r u n l a w f u l o r w i t h o u t j u s t i f i c a t i o n . The
e l e m e n t o f m a l i c e ( n o t m a l i c e a s it i s u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e p o p u l a r
s e n s e o f s p i t e o r ill w i l l , b u t malice i n t h e l e g a l s e n s e ) meaning
t h e i n t e n t i o n a l doing of a wrongful a c t w i t h o u t j u s t i f i c a t i o n o r
excuse, i s a n e s s e n t i a l element of a n a c t i o n f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e
with contract. Such malice i s n o t presumed and c a n n o t b e i n f e r r e d
from t h e commission o f a l a w f u l a c t . Simonsen v . B a r t h , 64 Mont.
95, 208 P . 938; Burden v. E l l i n g S t a t e Bank, 76 Mont. 24, 245 P.
958; Q u i n l i v a n v . Brown O i l Co., 96 Mont. 1 4 7 , 29 P.2d 374.
Nothing more b e i n g shown t h a n t h e commission o f a l a w f u l
a c t by McLean and t h e C r e d i t Union t h e b u r d e n was on T a y l o r t o
p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l and s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e r a i s i n g a
g e n u i n e i s s u e o f f a c t on t h e e l e m e n t o f m a l i c e .
The g o v e r n i n g law on a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment i s
s t a t e d i n DeWinter v. Capp Homes, I n c . , 162 Mont. 1 9 , 24, 507
"The t r i a l judge was f a c e d w i t h a s e t o f f a c t s
t h a t could o n l y produce one c o n c l u s i o n . Ini-
t i a l l y , t h e b u r d e n was on d e f e n d a n t t o show a n
a b s e n c e o f a n y i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t . When
d e f e n d a n t m e t t h e b u r d e n , it w a s incumbent upon
t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r e s e n t evidence t o raise a
genuine issue. A s w e r e c e n t l y s a i d i n Roope v.
The Anaconda Company, 159 Mont. 28, 494 P.2d
922, 29 St.Rep. 170, 174:
" ' T h e burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a b s e n c e of any
i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t i s on t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g
summary judgment. Byrne v . P l a n t e , 154 Mont. 6 ,
459 P.2d 266, and c i t a t i o n s t h e r e i n . But where,
a s h e r e , t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s no g e n u i n e i s s u e
a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e burden i s upon t h e
p a r t y opposing t h e motion t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o f
a m a t e r i a l and s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e r a i s i n g a g e n u i n e
i s s u e of f a c t . F l a n s b e r g v . Mont. Power Co., 154
Mont. 53, 460 P.2d 263, and a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d
therein.' (Emphasis added)
" I n S t a t e ex rel. Burlington Northern v. D i s t r i c t
C o u r t , 159 Mont. 295, 496 P.2d 1152, 29 St.Rep.
380, w e a f f i r m e d t h a t r u l e :
" ' F a i l u r e o f t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion t o
e i t h e r raise o r demonstrate t h e e x i s t e n c e of a
g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t , o r t o demon-
s t r a t e t h a t t h e l e g a l i s s u e s h o u l d n o t be d e t e r -
mined i n f a v o r o f t h e movant, i s e v i d e n c e t h a t
t h e p a r t y ' s burden w a s n o t c a r r i e d . Summary
judgment i s t h e n p r o p e r , t h e c o u r t b e i n g under no
d u t y t o a n t i c i p a t e proof t o e s t a b l i s h a m a t e r i a l
and s u b s t a n t i a l i s s u e of f a c t . ' "
F i n a l l y , when t h e Hodacks d i d n o t pay t h e $3,000 n o t e on
t h e due d a t e , T a y l o r n o t o n l y sued Hodacks, b u t McLean and t h e
C r e d i t Union a s w e l l . T h i s s u i t was s e t t l e d by t h e Hodacks
borrowing $1,500 from t h e C r e d i t Union and p a y i n g it t o T a y l o r ,
who a c c e p t e d a n o t e from t h e Hodacks a t t h a t t i m e f o r t h e remain-
i n g $1,500 which n o t e T a y l o r t h i s t i m e s e c u r e d by a second mort-
gage on t h e p r e m i s e s . L a t e r on November 20, 1974, T a y l o r f i l e d
a s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e second mortgage when Hodacks p a i d t h e $1,500
n o t e w i t h money a g a i n borrowed from t h e C r e d i t Union. T h i s con-
s t i t u t e d n o t o n l y a n a c c o r d and s a t i s f a c t i o n and any e x t i n g u i s h -
ment of t h e c l a i m s h e had a g a i n s t Hodacks, b u t a l s o any p o s s i b i l i t y
of a c l a i m s h e c o u l d have had a g a i n s t McLean and t h e C r e d i t Union.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g summary judgment t o
defendants i s affirmed.
We c o n c u r :
Justices u