TAYLOR v ANACONDA FEDERAL CREDIT U

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: Decided : ,; F i l e d : ..! -;(Fp A p r i l 21, 1976 %$\ 2 & 1976 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' 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 . notes i n 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 downpayment 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 dama 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 . Montana. T a y l o r i s a r e s i d e n t of Anaconda, 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 prope 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 promi 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 . 95, 208 P . Simonsen v . B a r t h , 64 Mont. 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 . Init 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 A s w e r e c e n t l y s a i d i n Roope v. genuine issue. 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 demons 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 remaini 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 mortgage 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.