DIEHL ASSOCIATES v HOUTCHENS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14369 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 DIEHL AND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsL. R. HOUTCHENS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Kline and Niklas, Helena, Montana John R. Kline argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Smith and Harper, Helena, Montana Jack Harper argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: JAN f 1: ! I December 14, 1978 JAN 11 1979 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s t h e second time t h i s c a s e h a s been b e f o r e t h i s Court. Diehl and A s s o c i a t e s ( D i e h l ) f i r s t f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n on J u l y 3, 1975, i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Lewis and C l a r k County, t o r e c o v e r r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s commissions of $5,450 f o r p r o c u r i n g p u r c h a s e r s f o r two s e p a r a t e p a r c e l s of r e a l p r o p e r t y owned by defendant. Diehl, i n addition, s o u g h t t o r e c o v e r i t s a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . Houtchens f i l e d an answer and counterclaimed s e e k i n g a $500 e a r n e s t money d e p o s i t made by one of t h e above-referenced p u r c h a s e r s p l u s a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . The p a r t i e s s u b s e q u e n t l y s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court could r e n d e r a d e c i s i o n on t h e b a s i s of t h e r e c o r d . On August 13, 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n f a v o r of Diehl and on August 1 9 , 1976, e n t e r e d judgment f o r $5,450 p l u s $400 i n a t t o r n e y fees. Houtchens t h e r e a f t e r appealed t o t h i s Court s t a t i n g i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n of h i s b r i e f : "We r e s p e c t f u l l y submit t h e judgment of t h e lower c o u r t should be r e v e r s e d and s e t a s i d e and t h e lower Court d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r judgment i n f a v o r of Defendant t o g e t h e r w i t h (Emphasis added.) c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . " T h i s Court r e v e r s e d t h e judgment and remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t by d e c i s i o n d a t e d August 8, 1977. Diehl and A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . v. Houtchens ( 1 9 7 7 ) , , 567 P.2d 930, 34 St.Rep. 814. Mont. Specifically, the l a s t two paragraphs of o u r p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n r e a d : " T h e r e f o r e , w e remand t h i s m a t t e r t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of any ' a g e n t s i n c u r r e d expense r e l a t e d t o t h i s s a l e ' , t h e b a l a n c e of t h e d e p o s i t t o be e q u a l l y a p p o r t i o n e d between p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t . "The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s rev e r s e d and t h e c a u s e i s remanded - -e t o th d i s t r i c t court f o r further consideration -c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion." (Emphasis added. ) On September 1 2 , 1977, Houtchens moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o hold a hearing to: "1. Determine any a g e n t s i n c u r r e d expense r e l a t e d t o t h e s a l e i n accordance with t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t h e r e i n ; and "2. F i x reasonable a t t o r n e y s f e e s f o r t h e s e r v i c e s of d e f e n d a n t s a t t o r n e y h e r e i n p u r s u a n t 1947 and F l a h e r t y t o S e c t i o n 93-8601.1, R.C.M. v . Hensley, 1 6 5 Mont. 434." On March 21, 1978, D i e h l moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o s t r i k e Houtchens' r e q u e s t f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s , s t a t i n g t h a t t h e r e q u e s t was o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s decision. A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d o n t h e m a t t e r on A p r i l 4 , 1978, and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , o v e r D i e h l ' s o b j e c t i o n s , a l l o w e d Houtc h e n s t o produce e v i d e n c e on t h e m a t t e r of h i s a t t o r n e y fees. T h i s e v i d e n c e c o n s i s t e d o f t e s t i m o n y by Houtchens' a t t o r n e y t h a t h e had worked on t h e c a s e 57 h o u r s d u r i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a g e and 20 h o u r s d u r i n g t h e a p p e a l s t a g e ; t h a t h i s normal f e e was $40 p e r h o u r , and t h a t h i s agreement w i t h Houtchens w a s a f l a t $1,000 f e e f o r t h e Supreme C o u r t appeal. attorney. Houtchens a l s o c a l l e d Donald G a r r i t y , a Helena H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t $40 p e r hour and $1,000 f o r an a p p e a l w e r e r e a s o n a b l e c h a r g e s , t h a t i t was h i s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e t i m e s p e n t by e a c h s i d e would be r o u g h l y comparable, and t h a t t h e $400 f e e o r i g i n a l l y awarded by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o D i e h l was r e a s o n a b l e . On r e q u e s t of t h e c o u r t , Houtchens' a t t o r n e y subsequently submitted h i s t i m e records i n support of t h e 77 h o u r s h e c l a i m e d t o have s p e n t on t h e case p l u s a n a d d i t i o n a l s t a t e m e n t c l a i m i n g 6-1/4 previously claimed. a d d i t i o n a l hours n o t O May 30, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d judgment n f o r Houtchens f o r " t h e s m of $250 a s and f o r h i s one-half u s h a r e of t h e e a r n e s t money d e p o s i t t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e s m of u $3,986.75 a s and f o r h i s r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s t o date." Diehl a p p e a l s from t h e judgment i n s o f a r a s it awards a t t o r n e y f e e s t o Houtchens. Houtchens now s e e k s t o be awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s appeal. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r review by t h i s Court a r e : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court l a c k a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s i d e r Houtchens' r e q u e s t f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s ? 2. I f t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d have a u t h o r i t y t o con- s i d e r a t t o r n e y f e e s , were t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s awarded excess i v e i n l i g h t of t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d ? Diehl f i l e d t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n e v e n t u a l l y l e a d i n g t o t h i s a p p e a l t o c o l l e c t b r o k e r ' s commission a l l e g e d l y owed t o i t by Houtchens. T h i s a c t i o n was based on a b r o k e r ' s con- t r a c t which i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : " I n c a s e of s u i t o r a c t i o n on t h i s c o n t r a c t , I [ r e f e r r i n g t o Houtchens] a g r e e t o pay such a d d i t i o n a l sum a s t h e c o u r t , both t r i a l and a p p e l l a t e , may adjudge r e a s o n a b l e a s p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r neys f e e s . " Although Diehl o r i g i n a l l y p r e v a i l e d on i t s a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r t h e s e b r o k e r ' s commissions a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court l e v e l , we r e v e r s e d and remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r " f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion." Mont Diehl and A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . v , Houtchens ( 1 9 7 7 ) , . , 567 P.2d 930, 936, 34 St.Rep. 814, 820. The e f f e c t of our r u l i n g was t o make Houtchens, n o t D i e h l , the prevailing party i n the action. S e c t i o n 93-8601.1, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s : "Whenever by v i r t u e of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of any contract one p a r t y t o such c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n h a s an e x p r e s s r i g h t t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s from any o t h e r p a r t y t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r obligation i n t h e event t h e party having t h a t r i g h t s h a l l b r i n g an a c t i o n upon t h e c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n , t h e n i n any a c t i o n on such c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l be deemed t o have t h e same r i g h t t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n any such a c t i o n , whether by v i r t u e of t h e e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t , o r by v i r t u e of t h i s a c t , s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o recover h i s reasonable a t t o r n e y fees f r o m t h e losing party - parties." or (Em--p h a s i s added.) ... l Here, t h e c o n t r a c t gave ~ i e h t h e e x p r e s s r i g h t t o c o l l e c t attorney fees. The above s t a t u t e made t h i s r i g h t r e c i p r o c a l a s t o Houtchens. B v i r t u e of o u r p r e v i o u s y r u l i n g Houtchens, a s t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , became e n t i t l e d a s a m a t t e r of law t o h i s r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s . Fla- h e r t y v . Hensley (1974), 165 Mont. 434, 437, 529 P.2d 1389, Diehl a r g u e s t h a t i n remanding t h e c a u s e f o r " f u r t h e r consideration c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion" w e limited t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o a d d r e s s i n g o n l y t h o s e i s s u e s we s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed i n our p r i o r opinion. A s we d i d n o t d i s c u s s Houtchens' s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s , t h e argument c o n t i n u e s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court was powerless t o make t h e s t a t u t o r y award. W disagree. e Our remand f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n " c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n " meant o n l y t h a t i n a l l f u t u r e proceedings on t h e a c t i o n Houtchens, n o t D i e h l , was t o be regarded a s t h e prevailing party. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be awarded Houtchens, a s t h e new p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , i s completely c o n s i s t e n t with our p r i o r opinion. Equally without m e r i t i s Diehl's contention t h a t Houtchens waived h i s r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s . t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s no s u c h w a i v e r . A r e v i e w of Houtchens s o u g h t a t t o r - ney f e e s i n h i s answer and c o u n t e r c l a i m t o D i e h l ' s o r i g i n a l a c t i o n and renewed h i s c l a i m f o r f e e s i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n t o h i s b r i e f on t h e f i r s t a p p e a l . I n view of t h i s c o n t i n u i n g c l a i m by Houtchens f o r t h e s e f e e s , w e f a i l t o s e e any supp o r t f o r t h e argument t h a t h e somehow waived them. D i e h l a l s o a t t a c k s t h e amount of t h e f e e s awarded a s excessive. Again, w e d i s a g r e e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y from Houtchens' a t t o r n e y , C h a r l e s Smith, as t o t h e amount of t i m e h e s p e n t on t h e c a s e (77 h o u r s l a t e r i n c r e a s e d t o 83-1/4 h o u r s ) , t h e amount o f h i s normal f e e ($40 p e r hour i n 1975, i n c r e a s i n g t o $50 p e r hour i n 1976 and 1 9 7 7 ) , and t h e d e t a i l s of h i s f e e a r r a n g e m e n t w i t h Houtchens ($40 p e r hour p l u s $1,000 f o r f i r s t a p p e a l ) . Donald G a r r i t y , a l o c a l Helena a t t o r n e y , t e s t i f i e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e r a n g e of f e e s c h a r g e d by a t t o r n e y s i n Helena ($30 t o $60 p e r h o u r ) , t h e a b i l i t y , e x p e r i e n c e and r e p u t a t i o n of S m i t h , and t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e t i m e s p e n t by Smith on t h e c a s e . Garrity a l s o commented he f e l t t h e $400 awarded D i e h l a s a t t o r n e y f e e s b e f o r e t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s r e v e r s a l was a r e a s o n a b l e f e e f o r t h e work done by D i e h l ' s a t t o r n e y i n t h e c a s e , which G a r r i t y c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s " r o u g h l y comparable" t o what s m i t h had done f o r Houtchens. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o examined t h e t i m e r e c o r d s s u b m i t t e d t o it d e t a i l i n g t h e t i m e Houtc h e n s ' a t t o r n e y s p e n t on t h e case. W e c a n n o t s a y a s a m a t t e r of l a w and a p p l y i n g t h e g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n C r n c e v i c h v . Georgetown ~ e c r e a t i o n Corp. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 1 1 3 , 119-20, 541 P.2d 56, 59, t h a t t h e award i s e x c e s s i v e o r n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e . F i n a l l y , Houtchens r e q u e s t s t h a t we award him reasona b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s a p p e a l . Houtchens' r i g h t t o any a t t o r n e y f e e s i s based i n p a r t on t h e b r o k e r ' s c o n t r a c t o r i g i n a l l y sued on by D i e h l . As quoted above, t h a t c o n t r a c t provided t h a t Diehl had t h e e x p r e s s r i g h t t o c o l l e c t a t t o r n e y f e e s awarded by " b o t h t r i a l and a p p e l l a t e " c o u r t s . Thus, t h e c o n t r a c t o b v i o u s l y contemplated t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l a s w e l l a s a t t r i a l were t o be charged by Diehl t o Houtchens. 8601.1, R.C.M. S e c t i o n 92- 1947, makes t h i s r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s r e c i p r o c a l a s t o Houtchens. W do n o t f i n d $1,000 a s e a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h i s a p p e a l t o be unreasonable and t h e r e f o r e o r d e r t h e same t o be p a i d by Diehl t o Houtchens. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s a f f i r m e d . W Concur: e

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.