STATE v HELEHAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE STATE OF MONTANA, Acting by and through the Department of Highways of the State of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, THOMAS HELEHAN, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, Honorable James D.Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Daniels and Mizner, Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Daniel J. Sullivan, Highway Legal Department, Helena, Montana Submitted on briefs: January 16, 1980 T,r" Filed: . 7c$] Decided : p- ' - 1380 - J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County o f S i l v e r BOW, i n a n e m i n e n t domain p r o c e e d i n g . I n J u l y 1 9 6 5 , t h e S t a t e o f Montana t h r o u g h t h e D e - p a r t m e n t o f Highways s o u g h t t o condemn p a r t o f a p a t e n t e d m i n i n g c l a i m o u t s i d e t h e C i t y o f B u t t e , i n S i l v e r Bow County. D e f e n d a n t Thomas Helehan owned a n u n d i v i d e d o n e - e i g h t h (1/8) i n t e r e s t i n t h e m i n i n g c l a i m . E l e v e n y e a r s l a t e r a commission awarded t h e a p p e l l a n t Helehan t h e sum o f $30,886 f o r h i s i n t e r e s t ; and on December 1 5 , 1976, Helehan and h i s a t t o r n e y , J o s e p h E n g l e 111, w i t h d r e w t h e sum o f $23,194.50 by w a r r a n t made p a y a b l e t o b o t h o f them by t h e S i l v e r Bow County C l e r k of Court. Engle took one-third ( 1 / 3 ) o f t h a t amount a s h i s a t t o r n e y f e e a n d Helehan t o o k t h e b a l a n c e . Thereafter, d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n i o n a r o s e between E n g l e a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t , a n d t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was s e v e r e d . New c o u n s e l was o b t a i n e d by Helehan and o n May 3, 1979, a j u r y awarded Helehan t h e sum o f $5,000 f o r h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e claim. Thereafter, a t a hearing i n D i s t r i c t Court, a p p e l l a n t Helehan c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e judgment d e c r e e i n g t h a t t h e e x c e s s monies withdrawn c o u l d o n l y b e c o l l e c t e d i n a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n and t h a t M r . action. E n g l e was a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y t o s u c h The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded judgment t o Helehan b u t d e d u c t e d what i t c a l c u l a t e d t o b e t h e b a l a n c e d u e t h e S t a t e o f Montana. T h a t judgment found t h a t Helehan was i n d e b t e d t o t h e S t a t e o f Montana f o r $15,680.88, plus interest. It i s from t h a t judgment and a d e n i a l o f t h e m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend s a i d judgment t h a t Helehan a p p e a l s . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y award t h e S t a t e o f Montana a money judgment i n a b s e n c e o f a h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s and i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y c r e d i t i n t e r e s t d u e t h e defendant? I n o r d e r t o answer t h e f i r s t i s s u e p r o p e r l y , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s u g g e s t s , and w e b e l i e v e q u i t e p r o p e r l y s o , t h e i s s u e s h o u l d b e r e s t a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner: Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y i s s u e a judgment i n t h i s c a s e , p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e e x c e s s withdrawal of t h e a p p e l l a n t should be r e t u r n e d t o t h e S t a t e with interest? I t i s t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t s e c t i o n 70-30-311, MCA p r o v i d e s t h a t i n o r d e r t o r e c o v e r a n y e x c e s s amounts i n a matter o f t h i s t y p e , t h e r e s h o u l d b e a s e p a r a t e l e g a l a c t i o n by t h e S t a t e . A p p e l l a n t c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e s t a t u t e , and f a i l s t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h i s v e r y problem was c o n s i d e r e d by t h i s C o u r t i n The S t a t e o f Montana v . C h u r c h w e l l ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 52, 403 P.2d 751. I n t h a t c a s e , t h e C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e d e p o s i t o f t h e 75% o f a commission award a s p r o v i d e d by C h a p t e r 234 o f t h e L a w s o f 1961 and noted t h a t : "A c a r e f u l r e a d i n g o f t h e l a s t amendatory s e c t i o n c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a n l i m i t t h e draw-down t o 75 p e r c e n t unless s u r e t i e s a r e provided f o r t h e amount o v e r 75 p e r c e n t . This provision i s t o p r o t e c t t h e S t a t e where more money h a s been withdrawn t h a n i s awarded by t h e j u r y , and w i t h a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , e v e n though a n a c t i o n i s m e n t i o n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e t h e r e c o u l d app e a r t o b e no r e a s o n u n d e r t h i s amendment t h a t should r e s t r a i n o r p r o h i b i t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n f i n a l l y determining t h e i s s u e . " C h u r c h w e l l , s u p r a , a t 62, 403 P.2d a t 756. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h e a u t h o r i t y c i t e d i n c h u r c h w e l l and r u l e d a c c o r d i n g l y . Thereafter, the appellant c r e a t e d a s i d e - i s s u e by c o n t e n d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y E n g l e was p a i d some o f t h e money w i t h d r a w n , t h e r e f o r e , t h e a t t o r n e y , by r e a s o n o f s u c h payment, became a p a r t y t o s u c h a c t i o n and t h a t t h e S t a t e must l o o k t o him t o r e c o v e r t h a t money p a i d t o t h e a t t o r n e y by b r i n g i n g a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n a g a i n s t him. A p p e l l a n t c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t t h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t E n g l e w a s a p a r t y t o t h e condemnation a c t i o n . No f a c t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was n o t t h e s o l e p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e t r i a l . A s would a p p e a r from t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n , t h e payment by t h e a p p e l l a n t t o E n g l e must have b e e n made p u r s u a n t t o some p r i v a t e a g r e e ment between c o u n s e l and a p p e l l a n t . The payment o f some $7,000 by t h e a p p e l l a n t t o h i s a t t o r n e y c l e a r l y i s n o t a payment o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a s " n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s o f l i t i g a t i o n " p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n s 7030-305 and 70-30-306, MCA. Payment t o E n g l e w a s made a f t e r t h e condemnation award was d e p o s i t e d , b u t b e f o r e j u r y t r i a l . The c o u r t f i l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s payment was made a f t e r t h e commission award had been a p p e a l l e d . The award o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n a condemnation c a s e i s o n l y a u t h o r i z e d a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e l i t i g a t i o n . It i s only authorized a f t e r n o t i c e and a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and i f t h e landowner p r e v a i l s i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n . I n addition, the amount t o b e p a i d i s n o t d e c i d e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a c o u r t condemnation a c t i o n , b u t by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . H e r e i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e payment t o E n g l e d i d n o t make him a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n , n o r i s t h e r e any a u t h o r i t y c i t e d t o u s t h a t h e became a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y . The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s h e r e b y a f f i r m e d . W e concur. % & Chief J u s t i c e ~ t ~ ~
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.
