KADILLAK v DEPT OF STATE LANDS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-254 IN THE SUPREYE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 GEORGE and MARIE KADILLAK, husband & wife, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, -vsMONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, In and for the County of Silver Bow, The Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants; .McGarvey, Lence & Heberling; John L. Heberling, argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: John F. North, Dept. of State Lands, Helena, Morrtana Submitted: Decided: Filed: APR 2 6 1982 January 15, 1982 April 26, 1982 M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. I n a p r i o r d e c i s i o n t h i s C o u r t remanded t h i s c a s e t o t h e S i l v e r Bow D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on a t t o r n e y fees. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded t h e f e e s b a s e d o n M o n t a n a ' s w r i t of mandate s t a t u t e . The p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . The o r i g i n a l case, ~ a d i l l a kv . Anaconda Co. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , , Mont. 6 0 2 P.2d 1 4 7 , 3 6 S t . R e p . 1 8 2 0 , i n v o l v e d a n a p p e a l from a District C o u r t o r d e r denying p l a i n t i f f s r e l i e f on t h e i r c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e Anaconda Company and v a r i o u s s t a t e a g e n c i e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t and o p e r a t i o n o f a waste dump n e a r t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' r e s i d e n c e s i n B u t t e , Montana. his C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f s a w r i t o f mandate a g a i n s t t h e Department of S t a t e L a n d s ( S t a t e L a n d s ) , e n j o i n e d t h e Anaconda Company f r o m u s i n g t h e w a s t e dump u n t i l a v a l i d p e r m i t was o b t a i n e d , and remanded t h e c a s e f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e w r i t of mandate s t a t u t e . An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g o n a t t o r n e y f e e s was h e l d o n J u n e 3, 1980. A t the hearing p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y , Jon Heberling, r e q u e s t e d f e e s f o r 9 0 % o f t h e t o t a l h o u r s s p e n t on t h e case, t h e number o f h o u r s he c l a i m e d were a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e mandamus a c t i o n a g a i n s t S t a t e Lands. He contended t h a t i n o r d e r t o pre- v a i l on t h e mandamus i s s u e i t w a s n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v i d e p r o o f o f i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , proof o f t h e e q u i t i e s involved i n t h e case, p r o o f o f s t a n d i n g , and p r o o f t o meet t h e d e f e n s e o f s u b s t a n t i a l compliance with the permit requirements. Clayton Herron, an experienced t r i a l a t t o r n e y , t e s t i f i e d f o r the defendants. H e had n o t b e e n i n v o l v e d i n the actual trial o f t h e case b u t had b e e n a s k e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o r e v i e w t h e t r i a l r e c o r d and to g i v e a n o p i n i o n a s to w h a t h e c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a r e a s o n a b l e number o f h o u r s to h a v e s p e n t o n t h e mandamus issue. Mr. H e r r o n n o t e d t h a t o u t o f numerous c a u s e s o f a c t i o n pleaded a g a i n s t s i x defendants, the p l a i n t i f f s prevailed a g a i n s t o n l y o n e d e f e n d a n t and o n l y o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n was i n a d e q u a t e . B e c a u s e so many i s s u e s had b e e n r a i s e d a n d so much e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , he s t a t e d t h a t i n h i s o p i n i o n t h e o n l y p r o d u c t i v e way t o f i x a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e award was to e s t i m a t e t h e number o f h o u r s i t would h a v e t a k e n to b r i n g to t r i a l and a p p e a l t h e mandamus i s s u e . Based o n h i s own e x p e r i e n c e h e e s t i m a t e d t h a t 1 3 0 h o u r s would h a v e b e e n needed a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l and 40 t o 50 h o u r s on a p p e a l . A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e awarded p l a i n t i f f s $ 1 1 , 3 0 0 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and $ 7 , 9 2 4 . 3 9 i n costs. In h i s memorandum o p i n i o n t h e j u d g e s t a t e d t h a t u n d e r t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e mandamus s t a t u t e t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s was to be b a s e d s o l e l y o n t h e number o f h o u r s s p e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y o n t h e mandamus i s s u e and n o t t h e t o t a l number o f h o u r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e case. H e s t a t e d t h a t it was n o t p o s s i b l e to i s o l a t e o r c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e mandamus i s s u e and t h a t t h e elem e n t s o f p l e a d i n g and p r o o f i n t h e case were so i n t e r t w i n e d and c o n v o l u t e d t h a t no r a t i o n a l a l l o c a t i o n o f a t t o r n e y e f f o r t c o u l d b e made. T h e r e f o r e h e b a s e d t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s o n t h e number o f h o u r s M r . damus i s s u e . H e r r o n e s t i m a t e d a s r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e man- However, b e c a u s e he d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e case had been complex, t h e l i t i g a t i o n i m p o r t a n t , t h e s k i l l of t h e attorn e y s o f a h i g h o r d e r , and t h e d e s i r e d r e s u l t had b e e n o b t a i n e d , t h e j u d g e awarded t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s a t a h i g h e r r a t e p e r h o u r t h a n was recommended by M r . Herron. Costs were awarded o n l y f o r t h e items s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA. The ~ i s t r i c t o u r t j u d g e s t a t e d t h a t C h e knew o f no r e a l i s t i c f o r m u l a f o r s e g r e g a t i n g t h e c o s t s f o r t h e mandamus i s s u e and t h e r e f o r e awarded p l a i n t i f f s t h e t o t a l c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n t h e case f o r t h e items l i s t e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . However he d e n i e d t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t f o r p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t o n t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . The p l a i n t i f f s r a i s e t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s i n t h i s a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t e r r i n i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f C reasonable attorney fees? 2. Is p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t a l l o w a b l e o n a t t o r n e y f e e s a w a r d e d u n d e r t h e mandamus s t a t u t e ? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g to award a s "damages" w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 27-26-402, cer- MCA, t a i n l i t i g a t i o n expenses? 4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g to award a s c o s t s u n d e r s e c t i o n 25-10-201 ( 9 ) , MCA, c e r t a i n l i t i g a t i o n expenses? The f i r s t i s s u e d e a l s w i t h a t t o r n e y f e e s . 27-26-402, Section MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " I f j u d g m e n t is g i v e n f o r t h e [ w r i t o f m a n d a t e ] applicant : " ( 1 )h e may r e c o v e r t h e damages w h i c h he h a s s u s t a i n e d t o g e t h e r w i t h costs . . ." ... R e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s are damages w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h i s statute. S t a t e v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 1 2 7 Mont. 3 2 , 256 P.2d 1 0 7 6 ; S t a t e v. B a t a n i ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 1 0 3 Mont. 3 5 3 , 62 P.2d 565. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s o n l y f o r a n award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e number o f h o u r s s p e n t b y t h e a t t o r n e y o n t h e mandamus i s s u e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e e l e m e n t s o f p l e a d i n g and p r o o f were so i n t e r t w i n e d and c o n v o l u t e d i n t h i s case t h a t no r a t i o n a l a l l o c a t i o n o f a t t o r n e y e f f o r t o n t h e man- damus i s s u e c o u l d be made b a s e d on t h e t r i a l r e c o r d . t h e award was b a s e d on M r . Therefore H e r r o n v s estimate of t h e number o f h o u r s r e q u i r e d to p r e v a i l o n t h e mandamus i s s u e . The p l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t it was i m p r o p e r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t to b a s e t h e award on M r . H e r r o n ' s estimate r a t h e r t h a n on t h e scope of e v i - d e n c e r e a s o n a b l y a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e case. I n r e s p o n s e to p l a i n t i f f s v c o n t e n t i o n w e n o t e f i r s t t h a t i t is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e to d e t e r - m i n e r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s and h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h u n l e s s an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n is shown. G l i c k v. S t a t e , Montana D e p a r t m e n t o f ~ n s t i t u t i o n s ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 307, 5 2 8 P.2d 6 8 6 ; Luebben v. M e t l e n ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 1 1 0 Mont, 3 5 0 , 1 0 0 P.2d 935. W e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n h e r e . The o r i g i n a l t r i a l i n t h i s case l a s t e d f o r t h i r t e e n d a y s a n d i n v o l v e d s i x d e f e n d a n t s and f o u r t e e n s e p a r a t e c o u n t s r a n g i n g f r o m c o u n t s i n n u i s a n c e and t r e s p a s s t o a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e Montana E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y A c t , t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e Hard Rock Mining A c t , t h e Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t and t h e Clean A i r A c t . The case was complex and i n v o l v e d numerous i s s u e s o t h e r t h a n t h e mandamus i s s u e upon which t h e p l a i n t i f f s u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l e d on a p p e a l . S i n c e t h e a t t o r n e y f e e award i s t o be b a s e d o n l y o n t h e h o u r s s p e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y o n t h e mandamus i s s u e and s i n c e t h e e l e m e n t s o f p r o o f i n t h e case were so i n t e r t w i n e d , t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge d i d n o t abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n b a s i n g t h e award on t h e e s t i m a t e g i v e n by a n e x p e r i e n c e d t r i a l a t t o r n e y a s t o t h e number o f h o u r s n e c e s s a r y to p r e v a i l o n t h e mandamus i s s u e . The p l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h a t t h e j u d g e e r r e d a s a matter o f l a w i n f a i l i n g to b a s e t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s o n e v i d e n c e r e a s o n a b l y a d m i s s i b l e o n t h e mandamus i s s u e , i n c l u d i n g p r o o f r e l a t e d to s t a n d i n g , i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , t h e e q u i t i e s i n t h e c a s e , and t h e p e r m i t r e q u i r e m e n t s . argument. T h e r e is no merit to t h i s Proof o f i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y is n o t r e q u i r e d i n a w r i t of mandamus a c t i o n and t h e amount o f t i m e M r . Herron e s t i m a t e d as r e a s o n a b l e to p r e v a i l o n t h e mandamus i s s u e was s u f f i c i e n t to a l l o w t h e p a r t i e s t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t o t h e o t h e r areas o f proof. G u i d e l i n e s h a v e b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s C o u r t f o r d e t e r mining reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s . " '"The c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n to be r e c o v e r e d a r e t h e a m o u n t and c h a r a c t e r of t h e s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d , t h e l a b o r , t i m e and t r o u b l e i n v o l v e d , t h e c h a r a c t e r and i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e s e r v i c e s were r e n d e r e d , t h e amount of money o r t h e v a l u e o f p r o p e r t y to be a f f e c t e d , t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l and e x p e r i e n c e c a l l e d f o r , t h e c h a r a c t e r and s t a n d i n g i n t h e i r prof e s s i o n of t h e a t t o r n e y s . The r e s u l t s e c u r e d b y t h e s e r v i c e s o f t h e a t t o r n e y s may b e cons i d e r e d a s an i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i r value."^" F i r s t S e c u r i t y Bank o f Bozeman v . T h o l k e s ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 4 2 2 , 429-430, 5 4 7 P.2d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 2 . .. T h e s e g u i d e l i n e s were c o n s i d e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e when h e d e t e r m i n e d t h e r a t e p e r h o u r upon which to b a s e t h e f e e a w a r d . W e f i n d no e r r o r w i t h e i t h e r t h e method used b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judge f o r d e t e r m i n i n g r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s o r w i t h t h e amount awarded. The s e c o n d i s s u e d e a l s w i t h t h e d e n i a l o f p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t on t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e is no a u t h o r i t y i n M o n t a n a ' s s t a t u t e s o r c a s e law f o r t h e award o f i n t e r e s t o n a t t o r n e y f e e s p r i o r to judgment. The p l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d a s a matter o f l a w i n r e a c h i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . Two Montana s t a t u t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e a l w i t h t h e a w a r d i n g o f i n t e r e s t t o p e r s o n s e n t i t l e d to r e c o v e r d a m a g e s , s e c t i o n s 27-1-211 and 27-1-212, MCA. I n t h i s case t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s is a n award o f "damages" u n d e r s e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA. T h e r e f o r e it is n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r e i t h e r o f t h e i n t e r e s t s t a t u t e s a u t h o r i z e s a n award o f p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t i n t h i s case. S e c t i o n 27-1-211, MCA, provides : " E v e r y p e r s o n who is e n t i t l e d to r e c o v e r damages c e r t a i n o r c a p a b l e o f b e i n g made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n and t h e r i g h t to r e c o v e r is v e s t e d i n him upon a p a r t i c u l a r d a y i s e n t i t l e d a l s o t o r e c o v e r i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n from t h a t d a y ... ... 11 The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s case w a s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h e amount w a s n o t d e f i n i t e or c a p a b l e of b e i n g c a l c u l a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y p r i o r t o judgment. Therefore t h i s section does not provide authority f o r awarding prejudgment i n t e r e s t t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s . The o t h e r i n t e r e s t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 27-1-212, MCA, provides : " I n an a c t i o n f o r t h e breach of an o b l i g a t i o n n o t a r i s i n g from c o n t r a c t and i n e v e r y case o f o p p r e s s i o n , f r a u d , o r malice, i n t e r e s t may be g i v e n , i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e j u r y . . ." W i t h o u t d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h i s s t a t u t e a p p l i e s to cases i n w h i c h t h e j u d g e r a t h e r t h a n t h e j u r y d e t e r m i n e s t h e award of d a m a g e s , w e f i n d t h a t i n a n y e v e n t t h i s s t a t u t e would n o t a u t h o r i z e a n award o f p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t . I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s s t a t u t e t h i s Court p r e v i o u s l y quoted with approval the following language : " ' T h e r e is no a u t h o r i t y of law f o r t r e a t i n g t h e j u r y as c l o t h e d w i t h a double d i s c r e t i o n , - - a d i s c r e t i o n t o be e x e r c i s e d , f i r s t , i n f i x i n g t h e a m o u n t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s d a m a g e s , and t h e n i n a u g m e n t i n g t h a t amount by a n a s s e s s m e n t , i n t h e lb add i n t e r e s t t o n a t u r e of i n t e r e s t d i s c r e t i o n a r y damages is to m u l t i p l y u n c e r t a i n t y b y c e r t a i n t y ; t h e i n d e f i n i t e by t h e d e f i n i t e ; a m i x t u r e o f i n c o n g r o u s e l e m e n t s which s u b j e c t s o n e o f t h e p a r t i e s to t h e b u r d e n , and g i v e s t h e o t h e r t h e b e n e f i t o f b o t h k i n d s . " D a l y v. S w i f t & Co. ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 90 Mont. 5 2 , 67-68, 3 0 0 P. 265, 269. ... Based on t h i s r a t i o n a l e w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e a d i s c r e t i o n a r y award of p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t i n t h i s c a s e s i n c e t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s is i t s e l f d i s c r e t i o n a r y . The p l a i n t i f f s n e x t a r g u e t h a t a u t h o r i t y f o r a w a r d i n g p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t is found i n t h e mandamus s t a t u t e i t s e l f , sect i o n 27-26-402, MCA. P l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t prejudgment i n t e r e s t comes w i t h i n t h e meaning o f t h e term "damages". disagree. We I n t h i s case t h e p l a i n t i f f s e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t i n g e n t f e e agreement with t h e i r a t t o r n e y s . p r i o r to judgment. No a t t o r n e y f e e s were owing T h e r e f o r e t h e p l a i n t i f f s s u f f e r e d no d e t r i - ment i n t h e n a t u r e of prejudgment i n t e r e s t on a t t o r n e y f e e s s i n c e n o p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t was owing. W hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court c o r r e c t l y concluded t h a t e t h e r e is no a u t h o r i t y i n Montana f o r a n award of p r e j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t on t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y award of a t t o r n e y f e e s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s case. The t h i r d i s s u e is w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o award a s "damages" u n d e r s e c t i o n 27-26-402, t a i n out-of-pocket l i t i g a t i o n expenses. MCA, cer- W i t h r e g a r d to t h i s i s s u e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e mandamus s t a t u t e d o e s n o t contemplate t h e awarding of l i t i g a t i o n expenses n o t itemized i n t h e c o s t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA. W e find error i n t h e District C o u r t ' s determination. S e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA, provides t h a t the prevailing a p p l i c a n t f o r a w r i t o f m a n d a t e may r e c o v e r damages as w e l l as costs. I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e meaning o f "damages" w e t u r n to sec- t i o n 27-1-202, MCA: " E v e r y p e r s o n who s u f f e r s d e t r i m e n t from t h e u n l a w f u l a c t o r o m i s s i o n o f a n o t h e r may r e c o v e r from t h a t person i n f a u l t a compensation theref o r i n money, w h i c h i s c a l l e d damages. " The term " d e t r i m e n t " is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 27-1-201, MCA: " D e t r i m e n t is a l o s s or harm s u f f e r e d i n p e r s o n or property. " I n t h i s c a s e t h e p l a i n t i f f s were l i a b l e to t h e i r a t t o r n e y s under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e i r c o n t i n g e n t f e e agreement f o r a l l necessary l i t i g a t i o n expenses. I f S t a t e L a n d s had n o t i n c o r r e c t l y i s s u e d t h e p e r m i t to t h e Anaconda Company, t h e p l a i n t i f f s would n o t h a v e i n c u r r e d a s e x p e n s e s t h e l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s r e l a t e d t o t h e mandamus i s s u e upon which t h e y p r e v a i l e d . The d e t r i m e n t s u f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s w i t h r e g a r d to t h e s e l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s was c a u s e d by S t a t e L a n d s 1 f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m a c l e a r l e g a l duty. The p l a i n t i f f s a r e e n t i t l e d to be c o m p e n s a t e d f o r t h e r e a s o n a b l e l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s r e l a t e d to t h e mandamus i s s u e r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h o s e e x p e n s e s a r e a w a r d a b l e as " c o s t s " w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA. The d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s s h o u l d be p r e c l u d e d from c l a i m i n g t h e l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s a s damages bec a u s e t h o s e e x p e n s e s were n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y p r a y e d f o r i n t h e pleadings. P r i o r t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e w h i c h became e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 6 2 , t h i s a r g u m e n t would h a v e b e e n p e r s u a s i v e . See S t a t e v. District Court of E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 1 3 0 Mont. 6 5 , 294 P.2d S t a t e v . F o r d ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 1 1 6 Mont. 1 9 0 , 1 5 1 P.2d 171. 903; However, s u c h s p e c i f i c i t y o f p l e a d i n g is n o t mandated u n d e r t h e new r u l e s . t e c h n i c a l form M.R.Civ.P. o f p l e a d i n g i s now r e q u i r e d . No R u l e 8 ( e )( 1 ) , "The p u r p o s e o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r t h e new r u l e s i s t o p u t t h e c o u r t and t h e p a r t i e s o n n o t i c e o f t h e claim b e i n g made." Hodgson v . Hodgson ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 5 6 Mont. 4 6 9 , 474, 482 P.2d 140, 142. I n t h i s case t h e d e f e n d a n t s had n o t i c e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s were b r i n g i n g a mandamus a c t i o n f o r which d a m a g e s may b e r e c o v e r e d . L i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s a r e a n a t u r a l and n e c e s s a r y r e s u l t o f s u c h a n The d e f e n d a n t s were n o t w i t h o u t n o t i c e t h a t s u c h d a m a g e s action. m i g h t r e s u l t i n t h i s case. T h e r e is a r e q u i r e m e n t u n d e r R u l e 9 ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P., s p e c i a l d a m a g e s m u s t be s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d . that However s i n c e t h e l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s were a n a t u r a l and n e c e s s a r y r e s u l t o f t h e mandamus a c t i o n , t h e y a r e g e n e r a l d a m a g e s and it was n o t n e c e s s a r y t o s p e c i f i c a l l y p r a y f o r them i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . " [ S l p e c i a l damages are t h e n a t u r a l b u t n o t n e c e s s a r y r e s u l t o f t h e wrong o r b r e a c h ; w h e r e a s g e n e r a l damages a r e damages t h e l a w would i m p u t e a s t h e n a t u r a l , n e c e s s a r y and l o g i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e P u r i n g t o n v . Sound o f t h e wrong or b r e a c h West ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 1 0 6 , 111-112, 5 6 6 P.2d 795. ." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t a w a r d i n g a s damages t h o s e l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e mandamus a c t i o n w h i c h were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e award o f c o s t s . The l a s t i s s u e d e a l s w i t h t h e award o f costs. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t c o s t s a r e to b e a w a r d e d o n l y f o r t h e i t e m s s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d i n s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA. T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t " t h e l i s t o f items [ i n s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA,] i s e x c l u s i v e e x c e p t as t o cases t a k e n o u t o f i t s o p e r a t i o n by s p e c i a l s t a t u t e , b y s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , o r by r u l e of court." Roseneau Foods, Inc. v. Coleman ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 4 0 Mont. 5 7 2 , 5 8 0 , 374 P.2d 8 7 , 91. The p l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t i n c l u d i n g c e r t a i n l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s as c o s t s u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 9 ) o f s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA, which p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p a r t y t o whom c o s t s a r e a w a r d e d i s e n t i t l e d to t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s t h a t are t a x a b l e a c c o r d i n g to t h e c o u r s e and p r a c t i c e of t h e c o u r t . T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e , however, t h a t l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s are t a x a b l e accordi n g t o t h e c o u r s e and p r a c t i c e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . S i n c e no e r r o r a p p e a r s f r o m t h e r e c o r d , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award o f costs must be upheld. T h i s case is remanded f o r a h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e mandamus a c t i o n . Those l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e a w a r d o f c o s t s a r e t o b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e award of damages u n d e r s e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA. j udgment is a £ f i r m e d The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s . Chief J u s t i c e We co cur: f r'" \,

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.