No. 13473
I N THE SUPREI4E COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
BELGRADE STATE BANK,
A Montana C o r p o r a t i o n ,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
HERBERT EARL SWAINSON, i n d i v i d u a l l y , and
a s GUARDIAN of t h e ESTATE O WANDA K . SWAINSON,
F
WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n , MRS. ROBERT
BLACK, JAMES HUNT and L R Y JORDAN,
AR
D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Nat A l l e n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t s :
Huppert and S w i n d l e h u r s t , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
Arnold Huppert a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
Swandal & D o u g l a s s , L ' i v i n g s t o n , Montana
Kent Douglass a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
Byron L. Robb a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
For Respondent :
S t e p h e n C l a r k e Mackey a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Towe, Neely and B a l l , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: March 2 2 , 1977
Decided :@J 5 2 1977
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
Defendants a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
Park County, f o r p l a i n t i f f Belgrade S t a t e Bank.
I n 1966 Herbert E a r l Swainson ( B e r t ) was appointed guardian
of h i s minor d a u g h t e r ' s e s t a t e and proceeded t o manage t h e a s s e t s ,
which t h e daughter had i n h e r i t e d from h e r mother. A p a r t of t h e
e s t a t e was used t o purchase a ranch n e a r L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
and t h e r e s t was p u t i n c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t . The d i s t r i c t
c o u r t judge who p r e s i d e d over t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p proceedings allowed
t h e purchase of t h e ranch a s an investment b u t he made i t c l e a r
from t h e o u t s e t t h a t i n no way would he a l l o w t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p t o
become involved i n a ranching o p e r a t i o n .
I n 1968, B e r t wanted t o run a c a t t l e o p e r a t i o n on t h e ranch
b u t he lacked funds w i t h which t o purchase c a t t l e and equipment.
He approached h i s b r o t h e r J a c k , who was t h e e x e c u t i v e v i c e - p r e s i -
d e n t of t h e Belgrade S t a t e Bank, t o apply f o r a loan. B e r t had
a l r e a d y borrowed i n excess of h i s p e r s o n a l borrowing l i m i t . It
was suggested i t would look b e t t e r t o t h e bank examiners i f t h e
loan was made t o t h e e s t a t e o r i n t h e name of t h e e s t a t e . After
some n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h t h e bank and t h e judge, an agreement was
reached. A p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p proceedings
stating:
It
That your p e t i t i o n e r made arrangements w i t h a
f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n t o loan him s u f f i c i e n t money
f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n expense of s a i d ranch, a s w e l l a s
t h e purchase of c a t t l e , and s a i d f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n
i s a g r e e a b l e t o s e c u r i n g s a i d l o a n s w i t h only t h e c a t t l e
o r necessary equipment t h a t may be purchased from s a i d
loan funds; t h a t t h e f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n has advised
your p e t i t i o n e r t h a t they a r e w i l l i n g t o e n t e r i n t o an
Agreement t h a t , i n t h e event of d e f a u l t i n t h e payment
of s a i d o b l i g a t i o n s , t h a t they w i l l only look t o t h e
s e c u r i t y pledged a s c o l l a t e r a l f o r s a i d l o a n s ,
and w i l l i n no way seek any d e f i c i e n c y judgment,
i n t h e event of f o r e c l o s u r e . I I
The c o u r t r e q u i r e d a l e t t e r from t h e bank a g r e e i n g t o t h i s
arrangement and t h a t l e t t e r s t a t e s :
"Belgrade, Montana
A p r i l 21, 1969
"The Honorable J a c k D . Shanstrom
D i s t r i c t Judge
Park County Courthouse
L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
"Dear Judge Shanstrom:
"It i s m understanding t h a t you have signed an
y
Order a u t h o r i z i n g Herbert E a r l Swainson, a s Guardian
of t h e Person and E s t a t e of Wanda K. Swainson, t o
borrow money from our i n s t i t u t i o n f o r t h e purchase of
c a t t l e and o p e r a t i n g expenses.
"It i s m f u r t h e r understanding t h a t your Order i s
y
conditioned upon u s a g r e e i n g t h a t , i n t h e event of
d e f a u l t and f o r e c l o s u r e of our mortgage, t h a t t h e e x t e n t
of t h e r e l i e f t o which we would be e n t i t l e d i s t o recover
back o u r s e c u r i t y , n o t t o seek any d e f i c i e n c y judgment
a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r guardianship a s s e t s .
"We a r e w i l l i n g t o do t h i s , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f
t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s c e r t a i n farm machinery t h a t M r .
Swainson h a s a c q u i r e d through loans t h a t would a l s o be
pledged a s s e c u r i t y . This equipment was n o t purchased
w i t h guardianship funds b u t through loans w i t h our
institution.
"Very t r u l y yours,
BELGRADE STATE BANK
By John W. Swainson
Executive Vice P r e s i d e n t . I I
The c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e a d s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"Upon reading and f i l i n g t h e v e r i f i e d P e t i t i o n of
HEEU3ERT EARL SFJAINSON, Guardian of t h e Person and E s t a t e
of WANDA K. SWAINSON, a Minor, and i t appearing from
s a i d P e t i t i o n t h a t i t i s t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e
minor ward t h a t t h e Guardian be p e r m i t t e d t o borrow moneys
t o purchase c a t t l e and t o o p e r a t e s a i d ranching b u s i n e s s ;
and
" I T APPEARING therefrom t h a t a f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n
i s w i l l i n g t o l o a n money f o r s a i d purposes t o t h e Guardian,
and h a s agreed t o l i m i t t h e i r r i g h t of recovery i n t h e
event of d e f a u l t on s a i d n o t e s , t o r e p o s s e s s i o n of t h e
secured p r o p e r t y , and n o t t o seek a d e f i c i e n c y a g a i n s t t h e
guardianship funds ;
"NOW, THEREFORE, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED That t h e s a i d
~ u a r d i a n ,~ e r b e i t a r l Swainson, may secure loans f o r
E
t h e purchase of c a t t l e and t o secure general operating
expenses f o r t h e ranch owned by s a i d minor ward, con-
d i t i o n e d upon s a i d f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n d e l i v e r i n g
a l e t t e r t o t h i s Court, by a q u a l i f i e d o f f i c e r of s a i d
i n s t i t u t i o n , t h a t i n t h e event of d e f a u l t on s a i d n o t e s ,
they w i l l only repossess t h e property secured by s a i d
C h a t t e l Mortgages, and w i l l not seek a deficiency judg-
ment a g a i n s t any of t h e o t h e r guardianship a s s e t s .
"Dated: This 23rd day of A p r i l , 1969 .'I
A s u b s t a n t i a l amount of money was loaned. and over two
hundred head of c a t t l e were purchased.
I n l a t e October 1969, Bert Swainson entered i n t o a c a t t l e
l e a s i n g agreement with one Robert Black. By the terms of t h i s
agreement, Bert Swainson would c a r e f o r 87 head of Black's c a t t l e
on t h e ranch and would receive 70% of t h e increase f o r doing t h i s .
The agreement provided t h a t a l l t h e c a l v e s be branded with t h e
Black brand; t h a t Black pay a l l taxes on t h e c a t t l e ; and i t s e t
t h e time f o r t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e i n c r e a s e a s t h e time of t h e
s a l e of t h e increase. The agreement f u r t h e r allowed Black t o
s e l e c t replacement h e i f e r s t o be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t h i s 30% share
of t h e increase.
I n J u l y 1970, Ed Towe, president of t h e Belgrade S t a t e Bank
(Bank) had some doubts t h a t a l l t h e c a t t l e purchased were on t h e
ranch so he made a v i s u a l inspection. While he was making t h e
i n s p e c t i o n , he secured an o r a l accounting of t h e number of c a t t l e
from Bert Swainson, which Towe recorded on a sheet of Swainson
l e t t e r h e a d paper. The l i s t included 230 head of cows, 83 head
of share cows, 185 calves branded with t h e e s t a t e brand and 56
calves of t h e leased cows which Swainson s a i d were due him under
t h e l e a s e agreement.
A f t e r t h i s v i s i t t h e Bank made two smaller loans f o r some
equipment and t o purchase two Charolais b u l l s . I n mid-August,
and again i n mid-September, t h e Bank loaned $4,000 on n o t e s
payable on demand. Less than a month a f t e r t h e l a s t $4,000
loan, onboctober 13, 1970 t h e Bank invoked t h e i n s e c u r i t y c l a u s e
of i t s s e c u r i t y agreement and took possession of a l l t h e
e s t a t e ' s c a t t l e leaving a l l t h e l e a s e cows and t h e i r c a l v e s
on t h e Swainson ranch.
During t h e summer p r i o r t o t h e s e i z i n g of t h e c a t t l e , t h e
Bank obtained an assignment from Bert Swainson of h i s i n t e r e s t
i n t h e l e a s e c a t t l e and had attempted t o g e t a consent from M r .
Black. The Black-Swainson l e a s e agreement contained a non-assign-
a b i l i t y clause. N consent was ever given by e i t h e r Mr.,or Mrs.
o
Black.
S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e Bank c a t t l e had been taken from t h e ranch,
Larry Jordan, a bulk g a s o l i n e d i s t r i b u t o r and a c r e d i t o r of t h e
ranching operation, drove by t h e ranch on h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n route
and noticed t h e l e a s e c a t t l e s t i l l on t h e land. Jordan approached
another c r e d i t o r of t h e ranching o p e r a t i o n , James Hunt who owned
a l o c a l lumber yard, and they approached Bert Swainson and
o f f e r e d t o buy a p a r t of h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e i n c r e a s e of t h e BUck
c a t t l e , so t h a t he could pay h i s debts t o them. A f t e r some
n e g o t i a t i o n a s a l e was arranged. Mrs. Black, whose husband died
p r i o r t o t h e Bank s e i z i n g t h e Swainson c a t t l e , t r a n s f e r r e d 36
c a l v e s , a l l branded with h e r brand, t o Hunt and Jordan, who gave
h e r a check f o r t h e balance of t h e purchase p r i c e over what was
owed t o them. M r s . Black had s e l e c t e d h e i f e r c a l v e s a s replace-
ments and a f t e r t h e i r weight was c r e d i t e d toward h e r 30% t3f t h e
i n c r e a s e due under t h e c o n t r a c t and apparently a f t e r deducting
the amount due her because the death loss exceeded that
allowed under the contract, she paid Bert Swainson the balance
due, as he requested, in cash.
In May 1971, the Bank sent a notice of sale of the collateral
to the guardian and the cattle were sold leaving a substantial
amount still owing on the Bank's loans to the estate. On October
16, 1972, the Bank filed this action against the guardian,
the surety company, and Mrs. Black. On December 3, 1973, the com-
plaint was amended joining Hunt and Jordan as defendants.
Due to the multiple defendants with conflicting interests,
we are faced with numerous issues. In view of the fact we find
several issues controlling and dispositive of various defendants,
we set forth three issues:
1 This issue is directed at the court's failure to rule
)
on the motions to dismiss made at the close of plaintiff's case
and again at the close of defendants' case.
2) This raises the question of whether or not Bert Swainson
was acting for the guardianship when he entered into the agree-
ment of October 31, 1969, with the Bank.
3 Issue three concerns attorney fees.
)
Issue 1.
) This concerns the trial court's failure to grant
the defendants' motions to dismiss, which were properly made
(1) at the close of plaintiff's case, when the trial judge took
them under advisement, and (2) at the close of all testimony.
Our first consideration is to the motions to dismiss of
defendants Black, James Hunt and Larry Jordan. We find the trial
court erred in not granting their motions to dismiss.
The security agreements dated February 14, 1969 and
December 17, 1969, executed by Bert Swainson as guardian of
the estate, each contained language stating that after-acquired
livestock would be subject to the security agreement. The Bank
filed a standard financing statement with the clerk and recorder
of Park County. The debtor identified in the two documents
filed was the "Wanda Swainson Ranch Estate", no additional debtor
was named, no mention was made that after-acquired property was
considered collateral.
A year after the initial loan to the estate Bert Swainson,
individually, entered into the Black contract to care, feed and
breed the Black cattle and in return he was to receive 70% of
the calf crop. No mention was made of the relationship he had
with the estate. All testimony indicated this contract was entered
by him as an individual, and all parties so understood that
agreement.
While Towe testified Bert told him the share cattle were
to be considered collateral, this was denied by Bert. There is
no testimony to indicate Bert told either the Blacks, Hunt or
Jordan of any claim the Bank had to the calves. The Bank's claim
rests entirely on the alleged statement of Bert Swainson and Towe
testified:
"* * * as far as we were concerned I didn't even know
about the to lack-Swainson] contract and we weren't relying
on that contract anyhow. The cattle were purported to us
to be part of the collateral that we had under our security
agreement. * + *If
;
We find no reliable evidence that any measures were taken
by the Bank to notify Mrs. Black of the alleged interest claimed
by the Bank. The Bank tried to supply, through the testimony of
Jack Swainson, a conversation with Mr. Black. Mr. Black died
s e v e r a l m o ~ ~ i h s f o r e r e p o s s e s s i o n and Swainson a d m i t t e d Black
be
Aid n o t s i g n an assignment he had p r e p a r e d f o r t h e Bank. A t the
time t h e Bank r e p o s s e s s e d i t s c a t t l e , J a c k Swainson c a l l e d Mrs.
Black and made no mention of any i n t e r e s t t h e Bank had i n t h e s h a r e
calves. On October 1 3 , 1970, t h e Bank r e p o s s e s s e d i t s c a t t l e
from t h e ranch. Mrs. B l a c k ' s cows and c a l v e s were n o t t a k e n ,
nor was t h e s h e r i f f n o t i f i e d of any i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e Bank claimed.
The c a l v e s remained on t h e Swainson ranch f o r two weeks when,
on October 27, 1970, Mrs. Black and B e r t Swainson made a d i v i s i o n
of t h e c a l v e s . A t a l l times t h e cows and c a l v e s had t h e B l a c k ' s
brand on them.
I t was n o t u n t i l t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e c a l v e s t h a t J o r d a n
and Hunt came o n t o t h e scene i n an e f f o r t t o c o l l e c t d e b t s owed
them by B e r t Swainson. Swainson d i r e c t e d Mrs. Black t o g i v e a
b i l l of s a l e t o Hunt and J o r d a n , who purchased 36 c a l v e s ,
c r e d i t e d Swainson's account and gave him t h e remainder. Some
two y e a r s l a t e r , on October 1 6 , 1972, s u i t was f i l e d a g a i n s t Mrs.
Black a l l e g i n g c o n v e r s i o n of 56 c a l v e s .
Here, t h e Bank went t o c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t i n s e e k i n g and
g e t t i n g t h e a p p r o v a l of t h e c o u r t f o r t h e l o a n t o t h e e s t a t e . No
such e f f o r t s were made by e i t h e r t h e Blacks o r Swainson i n r e g a r d
to t h e i r contract. The c o u r t was unaware of t h e Black c o n t r a c t
u n t i l l i t i g a t i o n began. The c o n t r a c t between t h e Blacks and B e r t
Swainson c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n p r o h i b i t i n g assignment o r hypothe-
c a t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t by e i t h e r p a r t y , w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n con-
s e n t of t h e o t h e r . The c o n t r a c t i s v a l i d and t h e Bank i s estopped
from a t t a c k i n g i t s v a l i d i t y . I n a d d i t i o n , Swainson having f a i l e d
t o g e t any assignment from Black, t h e Bank d e a l t w i t h B e r t Swain-
son a t i t s own r i s k . Pasadena Investment Co. v . Pasadena A i r
Products l r i c . , 234 E.Supp. 128; Parkinson v. Caldwell, 126 C.k.2d
j4c3, 272 P.2d 934; Union Bond & T r u s t Co. v. M & M Wood Working
Co., 256 O r . 384, 474 P.2d 339, 352; 3 W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s 3rd.
$422; 12 H a s t i n g s Law J o u r n a l 397, 403.
d.,
In finding t h a t the court erred i n not granting M r s . Black's
rnorion co d i s m i s s , i t f o l l o w s t h a t Hunt and J o r d a n ' s motion should
a l s o have been g r a n t e d because Mrs. Black had good t i t l e t o t r a n s f e r .
W n e x t c o n s i d e r whether o r n o t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t
e
g r a n t i n g t h e motion t o d i s m i s s Western S u r e t y Company, t h e bonding
company f o r t h e E s t a t e of Wanda K. Swainson. Defendant s u r e t y
company a r g u e s i t was n o t a proper p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , and
n e i t h e r t h e complaint nor proof s u s t a i n s a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f
can be g r a n t e d . F u r t h e r , t h a t t h e bond i s s u e d i s t o indemnify
t h e ward a g a i n s t d e f a l c a t i o n s by t h e g u a r d i a n ; and u n t i l t h e r e
i s a l o s s by t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p e s t a t e t h e r e can be no l i a b i l i t y
on t h e bond. Burns v . Massachusetts Bonding & I n s . Co., 62 C.A.2d
962, 146 P.2d 24.
Western S u r e t y Company a r g u e s t h e r e can be no l i a b i l i t y
a g a i n s t t h e s u r e t y company f o r t h e s e r e a s o n s :
1 ) The s u r e t y company i s n o t l i a b l e because t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p
s u f f e r e d no l o s s ;
2) The c o u r t ' s o r d e r approving t h e l o a n t r a n s a c t i o n i s
i l l e g a l under ~ o n t a n a ' sg u a r d i a n s h i p law; and
3) The c o u r t ' s o r d e r approving t h e l o a n t r a n s a c t i o n b a r s
any recovery a g a i n s t i t by t h e Bank.
W concur w i t h W e s t e r n ' s argument t h a t u n t i l t h e r e i s a
e
d e f a l c a t i o n by t h e g u a r d i a n , and a l o s s t o t h e ward, t h e r e can
be no l i a b i l i t y on t h e p a r t of t h e s u r e t y company.
As t o t h e second p o i n t o f t h e argument t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n
w a s i l l e g a l , we do n o t concur. Here he c o u r t approved o n l y a
loan t o Swainson, s p e c i f i c a l l y o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p
would i n no way be l i a b l e f o r any l o s s e s . The c o u r t , a t t h e r e -
q u e s t of t h e Bank and B e r t Swainson, made a s p e c i f i c e f f o r t t o
p r o t e c t t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p a s s e t s and t h e p a r t i e s completely under-
stood t h e l o a n and i t s l i m i t s .
I n a d d i t i o n , under Montana's g u a r d i a n s h i p s t a t u t e s and c a s e
law, a g u a r d i a n has no power t o borrow money from o r t o encumber
p r o p e r t y of h i s ward without p r i o r a p p r o v a l of t h e c o u r t . Davidson
v . Wampler, 29 Mont. 61, 74 P. 82; Alexander v. Windsor, 107
Mont. 152, 8 1 P.2d 685; M i t c h e l l v. McDonald, 114 Mont. 292, 136 P.2d .
536; Anno. G u a r d i a n ' s Unauthorized A c t s , 130 A R 113-116; 39 Am
L
J u r 2d, Guardian and Ward, § § 91,99; 39 C.J.S. Guardian and Ward,
5 76.
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e ' Bank was r e q u i r e d . t o f i l e a cove-
n a n t - n o t t o sue a g a i n s t t h e e s t a t e , b e f o r e g e t t i n g t h e c o u r t ' s
permission t o make t h e l o a n . The,re h a s been no l o s s t o t h e
e s t a t e n o r could t h e r e be under t h e covenant. The Bank's b u s i n e s s
was w i t h B e r t Swainson p e r s o n a l l y f o r t h e agreement made by t h e
Bank w i t h t h e c o u r t a b s o l v e s t h e e s t a t e o f any l i a b i l i t y and
t h e s u r e t y i s n o t l i a b l e on t h e bond. Sago v . Ashford, 145 Colo.
358 P.2d 599
289f;Western Machinery Co. v . Northwest Improve. Co., 254 F.2d 453.
W n o t e h e r e t h a t t h e Bank a t a l l t i m e s a d m i t t e d i t had no
e
c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e a s s e t s of t h e e s t a t e i n view of t h e c o u r t ' s
o r d e r , b u t i f t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r e v a i l e d t h e r e was
no a s s u r a n c e t h a t t h e bonding company would n o t proceed a g a i n s t
t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p f o r t h e $10,000 of t h e bond.
The second i s s u e i s whether o r n o t B e r t Swainson could i n
any way encumber t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p i n making t h i s agreement w i t h
t h e Bank. A l l t h e evidence c l e a r l y shows t h e e n t i r e t r a n s a c t i o n
was between t h e Bank and B e r t Swainson. The g u a r d i a n s h i p became
involved o n l y a s a paper f r o n t because of banking requirements.
The g u a r d i a n s h i p e s t a t e l e n t i t s name s o t h e Bank could make
a d d i t i o n a l l o a n s t o B e r t Swainson a f t e r he had exceeded h i s
borrowing c a p a c i t y . I t d i d s o knowingly a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t judge
s u p e r v i s i n g t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p d i r e c t e d t h a t t h e r e was t o be no
l i a b i l i t y of any kind a g a i n s t t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p . Considering t h e
f a c t s h e r e , where t h e Bank was i n t h e unique p o s i t i o n w i t h
r e l a t i o n t o i t s l o a n t o B e r t Swainson, i t cannot s h i e l d i t s e l f by
looking t o anyone b u t B e r t Swainson.
The t h i r d i s s u e concerns a t t o r n e y f e e s and needs l i t t l e
d i s c u s s i o n i n view of o u r h o l d i n g i n t h i s c a s e . The t r i a l c o u r t
e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e Bank a g a i n s t each d e f e n d a n t .
The Eank a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 87A-9-201,
9.C.M. 1947, recognize a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e c o l l e c t i o n of any
secured o b l i g a t i o n s a g a i n s t n o t only t h e borrower b u t p u r c h a s e r s
aL c o l l a t e r a l and o t h e r c r e d i t o r s . S e c t i o n 93-8613, R.C.M. 1947,
p r o v i d e s f o r c o u n s e l f e e s on f o r e c l o s u r e s . Answering d e f e n d a n t s '
argument t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s a r e r e c i p r o c a l under s e c t i o n 93-8601.1,
R.S.M. 1947, t h e Eank a r g u e s t h a t due t o t h e d a t e s on t h e s e c u r i t y
i n t e r e s t s t h e p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e s t a t u t e a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e because
rhe s t a t u t e a l l o w i n g r e c i p r o c a l r i g h t s was passed a f t e r t h e
5 e ~ u r i t yagreements were signed.
W f i n d no m e r i t t o t h e Rank's argument.
e S e c t i o n 93-8613
is d p p l i c a b l e s o l e l y t o f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n s o r t o s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t s
irk :>ersonal p r o p e r t y . Except f o r t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e e s t a t e ,
the coillplaint .illeges a t o r t i o u s conversion a g a i n s t Black, Hunt
a ~ l dJordon. The s e c t i o n a s t o t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e .
A l l d e f e n d a n t s , except H e r b e r t E a r l Swainson, a r e e n t i t l e d
to d t r o r n e y f e e s by v i r t u e of s e c t i o n 93-8601.1, R.C.M. 1947.
The s t a t u t e i s p r o c e d u r a l i n n a t u r e and a p p l i e s t o a c t i o n s com-
rnerlced a f t e r i t s e f f e c t i v e d a t e , even though such a c t i o n a r o s e
x ~ of e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g p r i o r t h e r e t o .
t Crncevich v. Georgetown
Xec. Corp., 168 Mont. 113, 541 P.2d 56, 32 St.Rep. 963; Anno.
18 ALR3d 733, 736, 740.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a g a i n s t H e r b e r t E a r l
Snainsdn i n d i v i d u a l l y i s a f f i r m e d , b u t r e v e r s e d a s t o a l l o t h e r
delendants. The cause i s remanded w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o f i x a t t o r -
qey f e e s f o r d e f e n d a n t s .