HAGGERTY v SELSCO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12868 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1975 T. G . HAGGER'i'Y and F. P. MESSMER e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -vs SELSCO, a Utah c o r p o r a t i o n e t a l . , Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana J . R o b e r t P l a n a l p a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana F o r Respondents: Berg, Angel, A n d r i o l o and Morgan, Rozeman, Montana Ben E. Berg a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : /.$pk2 3 March 4 , 1975 APR 2 9 1975 %"@p ~~LW",Q/ lerk 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. This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s T.G. Haggerty and F.F. Messmer, c o - p a r t n e r s , doing b u s i n e s s a s Haggerty-Messmer Co., a p a r t n e r s h i p , i n an a c t i o n f o r f o r e c l o s u r e of a mechanic's l i e n a g a i n s t a t r a i l e r c o u r t owned by defendant S e l s c o , a Utah c o r p o r a t i o n q u a l i f i e d t o do b u s i n e s s i n Montana. Action was brought t o r e c o v e r t h e b a l a n c e due under a c o n t r a c t t o e r e c t c e r t a i n b u i l d i n g s and i n s t a l l t r a i l e r c o u r t f a c i l i t i e s . Defendant f i l e d a cross-complaint. T r i a l was h e l d i n G a l l a t i n County, Hon. W. W. Lessley presi.ding without a j u r y . Judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s was i n t h e amount of $70,680.55, p l u s i n t e r e s t a t 6 percent o r $6,738.85, and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount of $7,500. 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 r a c t w i t h defendant f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e West Yellowstone United Campground. The con- t r a c t was signed on May 28, 1971,and by June 2 , 1971, p l a i n t i f f s had moved onto t h e s i t e and begun c o n s t r u c t i o n work. Time was of t h e e s s e n c e because defendant d e s i r e d t o open t h e campground i n August 1971. P l a i n t i f f s were t o c o n s t r u c t a road system, water system, a u x i l i a r y r e s t rooms, and f i n i s h c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e main a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g ; a l l work was t o be completed i n s i x t y - o n e c a l e n d a r days. P l a i n t i f f s had two g e n e r a l s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s on t h e job s i t e during construction. One was i n charge of t h e b u i l d i n g s , t h e o t h e r i n charge of t h e sewer lagoon, s i t e grading throughout t h e a r e a , and a l l roads. The e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m of Morrison-Maierle designed t h e p r o j e c t and was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o v e r s e e i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . This f i r m , from i t s o f f i c e i n Bozeman, had primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of checking t h e p r o j e c t and i t s r e s i d e n t e n g i n e e r , Olmstead, was i n charge of t h e g e n e r a l overseeing job. The f i r s t probtlem t h a t a r o s e was t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e main a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g which defendant had c o n t r a c t e d t o a n o t h e r company, Diamond Homes. While p l a i n t i f f s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r b u i l d i n g t h e t o i l e t and shower b u i l d i n g s , t h e y were only r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e foundation o f t h e main a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g . Homes was t o e r e c t i t i n t e r i o r work. Diamond and then p l a i n t i f f s were t o f i n i s h o f f some The pre-fab Diamond Homes b u i l d i n g d i d n o t a r r i v e on t h e s i t e u n t i l J u l y 2, 1971. There was no r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f Diamond Homes t h e r e t o unload i t , t h e r e f o r e p l a i n t i f f s unloaded t h e building. C e r t a i n m a t e r i a l s were u n s a t i s f a c t o r y and a n o t h e r e i g h t e e n days went by b e f o r e replacements a r r i v e d . I n t h e meantime Diamond Homes made a d e a l , known t o defendant, w i t h p l a i n t i f f s t o e r e c t t h e 11 A 1 1 frame b u i l d i n g and t h i s work began on J u l y 20, 1971. It i s e s t i m a t e d by Bergan, p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , t h a t t h i s work took from t h r e e weeks t o a month. Diamond Homes $3,382.90 f o r t h e work. Plaintiffs billed Defendant, knowing of t h e d e a l made by Diamond Homes w i t h p l a i n t i f f s , p a i d Diamond Homes f o r t h e work b u t Diamond Homes f a i l e d t o pay p l a i n t i f f s . Defendant paid p l a i n t i f f s a l l amounts owed, l e s s r e t a i n a g e , through August 20, 1971, b u t has r e f u s e d t o make any f u r t h e r payments because of a l l e g e d d e f e c t s i n t h e performance of t h e cont r a c t and counterclaims i t i s e n t i t l e d t o l i q u i d a t e d damages i n an amount of $200 per day f o r a d e l a y of 57 days. The c o n t r a c t provided t h a t t h e s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r s , MorrisonMaierle, would d e c i d e a l l q u e s t i o n s which a r o s e concerning a c c e p t a b i l i t y of m a t e r i a l s f u r n i s h e d , work performed, r a t e of p r o g r e s s of work, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f drawings and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , and a l l q u e s t i o n s a s t o a c c e p t a b l e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s part. Two major items i n t h e c o n t r a c t appear t o have caused t h e d i s p u t e s which a r o s e between p l a i n t i f f s and defendant--the e i g h t e e n shower s t a l l s and t h e road system. The s p e c i f i c a t i o n s c a l l e d f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of commercial grade t o p q u a l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n showers, r e f e r r e d t o a s Sanymetal Shower-master u n i t s o r t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t . The shower s t a l l s i n - s t a l l e d were n o t of a commercial grade t o p q u a l i t y and t h i s was brought t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f p l a i n t i f f s b e f o r e t h e i r i n s t a l l a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h e showers were n o t t h e kind s p e c i f i e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e shower bases began c r a c k i n g because t h e shower room c o n c r e t e f l o o r was improperly l a i d i n t h a t i t d i d n o t s l o p e t o the drains. Due t o t h e time f a c t o r o f g e t t i n g t h e camp open, t h e p a r t i e s agreed p l a i n t i f f s would attempt t o f i x t h e &owers so t h e y would be e q u a l o r e q u i v a l e n t t o what t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s c a l l e d for. The problem of what i t would t a k e t o make t h e u n i t s e q u a l o r b e t t e r i s one of t h e d i s p u t e d i s s u e s . Ronald Olmstead, orriso on-Maierle's s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r charged by t h e c o n t r a c t t o "* * * determine a l l q u e s t i o n s a s t o a c c e p t a b l e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e p a r t of t h e cont r a c t o r " t e s t i f i e d : (1) t h a t i t would t a k e $300 per shower t o b r i n g t h e i n s t a l l e d showers up t o a c c e p t a b l e q u a l i t y ; (2) t o r e p l a c e t h e e x i s t i n g showers w i t h t h o s e s p e c i f i e d i t would c o s t $10,800; and ( 3 ) i t would t a k e $1,500 t o f i x t h e s l o p e of t h e f l o o r s o i t would d r a i n . A Bozeman master plumber Walter Savage, t e s t i f i e d over p l a i n - t i f f s ' objections t h a t t o r e p a i r and r e p l a c e t h e shower s t a l l s a t 1972 c o s t s i t would c o s t $11,646 and a t 1974 c o s t s $14,886. P l a i n t i f f Tom Haggerty t e s t i f i e d t h a t t o g r o u t under a l l t h e showers and t o f i b e r g l a s s t h e e i g h t e e n showers would c o s t from $400 t o $800. The t r i a l c o u r t l a t e r modified i t s o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s on t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r and r e p l a c e t h e shower s t a l l s from $14,886 $5,400. to Defendant f e e l s t h i s f i g u r e inadequate. The second item i n d i s p u t e r e l a t e s t o t h e road system and t h e award of $1,500 t o r e p l a c e and r e p a i r t h e e n t r a n c e and e x i t r o a d s t o t h e campground. Engineer Ronald Olmstead t e s t i f i e d p l a i n t i f f s ' u t i l i t y s u p e r i n t e n d e n t Elmer Shay primed and s u r f a c e d t h e roads on August 19, 1971, a f t e r he was t o l d by Olmstead t h a t "* ** t h e road bed A f t e r t h i s warning was w a s n ' t q u i t e ready f o r s u r f a c i n g y e t . " i g n o r e d , , Morrison-Idaierle absolved i t s e l f of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and informed p l a i n t i f f s they might have t o come back and r e p a i r t h e roads. The e n t r a n c e and e x i t roads a r e each about 1,200 f e e t i n l e n g t h and connect t h e compground w i t h t h e main highway. Olmstead f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n h i s o p i n i o n , i t would c o s t about $1,000 t o r e p a i r t h e e x i t r o a d ; t h a t t h e e n t r a n c e road should have a g u a r a n t e e of one year on i t , b u t t h a t he had n o t determined what i t would t a k e t o r e p a i r i t . He then went on t o t e s t i f y t h a t i t would t a k e $7,000 t o r e s u r f a c e t h e e n t i r e a r e a . orriso on-Maierle's p r o g r e s s e s t i m a t e #5 s t a t e d , i n p a r t : "The T o t a l Earned of $293,773.95 does n o t i n c l u d e t h e prime o r s e a l o i l o r t h e crushed cover a g g r e g a t e f o r t h e E x i t Road. These have been deducted from t h e amount due a t t h e bottom of Page 5 s i n c e t h e E x i t Road c o n s t r u c t i o n i s n o t a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e Engineer o r Owner. I I From t h i s i t appears t h a t any damages a r i s i n g from t h e e x i t road have a l r e a d y been taken o u t of p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t r a c t sums due, b u t n o t h i n g was t e s t i f i e d t o a s t o how much t h e e n t r a n c e r e p a i r s would b e , u n l e s s t h e o v e r a l l f i g u r e of $7,000 was used minus t h e $1,500 f i n d i n g f o r t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r t h e e x i t r o a d , l e a v i n g a f i g u r e of $5,500 f o r r e p a i r s t o t h e e n t r a n c e road. The campground was opened and f u n c t i o n a l on September 27, 1971, and according t o t h e s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r ' s e s t i m a t e was 99 p e r c e n t complete. When t h e e n g i n e e r ' s p r o g r e s s r e p o r t 1/4, covering t h e p e r i o d from August 20 t o November 11, 1971, was submitted f o r t h e amount o f $49,064.45, estimate -- defendant r e f u s e d t o pay. It When t h e f i n a l p r o g r e s s Estimate No. F ' i v e - ~ i n a l " , c o v e r i n g November 11,1971 t o August 20, 1972, was submitted t o defendant i t d e c l a r e d t h e p r o j e c t 100 p e r c e n t complete and d i r e c t e d defendant t o pay p l a i n t i f f s t h e f u r t h e r sum of $77,414.35. This has n o t been paid. The t r i a l c o u r t awarded p l a i n t i f f s a judgment i n t h e amount of $70,680.55, p l u s i n t e r e s t on t h a t amount a t s i x p e r c e n t p e r annum t o d a t e of judgment o r $6,738.85, and t h e sum of $7,500 a t t o r n e y f e e s . O a p p e a l defendant r a i s e s t h e s e i s s u e s : n 1. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o j u s t i f y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e sum of $5,400 was n e c e s s a r y t o conform t h e shower s t a l l s t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , and t h e concomitant i s s u e of what method i s t o be used t o measure t h e damages i n c u r r e d when an owner must r e p a i r t h e f a u l t y work of t h e c o n t r a c t o r ? 2. Did t h e evidence j u s t i f y an award of only $1,500 t o r e - p l a c e and r e p a i r t h e e x i t and e n t r a n c e r o a d s t o t h e campground? 3, Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n f i n d i n g t h a t defendant was n o t e n t i t l e d t o l i q u i d a t e d damages f o r t h e 57 day d e l a y i n t h e p r o j e c t ? 4. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s award of $7,500 a t t o r n e y f e e s c o n s t i t u t e undue h a r d s h i p i n l i g h t of t h e o t h e r p e n a l t i e s awarded? I s s u e No. 1 q u e s t i o n s whether t h e evidence j u s t i f i e d t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e showers. A l l parties t o t h i s action recognized t h a t t h e showers d i d n o t meet t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . The only q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t was whether t h e showers could b e r e i n f o r c e d and brought up t o t h e c o n t r a c t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . o r whether t h e y would have t o b e removed and r e p l a c e d by t h e showers called for i n the specifications. The evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t a meeting a t t e n d e d by t h e cons u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s , p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , John Konold, i t was agreed t h a t p l a i n t i f f s would improve t h e s t a l l s by p u t t i n g styrofoam s h e e t i n g between them t o make them r i g i d and the wall solid. Following t h a t meeting a l l shower s t a l l s were p u l l e d o u t , styrofoam s h e e t s were p u t i n , and t h e s t a l l s r e p l a c e d . However, t h e problem of t h e shower b a s e s had n o t a r i s e n a t t h a t point. A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , t h e r e i s evidence of t h r e e d i f f e r e n t e s t i m a t e s f o r damages on t h e showers: (1) t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o s t t o r e p a i r and provide e q u a l showers; (2) c o s t of t o t a l replacement of showers; and ( 3 ) t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c o s t of i n s t a l l i n g t h e s p e c i f i e d shower s t a l l s and t h e c o s t of i n s t a l l i n g t h e shower s t a l l s t h a t were actually installed. Defendant argues t h e damages i t s u s t a i n e d by p l a i n t i f f s ' f a i l u r e t o complete t h e c o n t r a c t according t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i s computed by t h e c o s t of c o r r e c t i n g and completing t h e s t a l l s , n o t t h e v a l u e which t h e c o n t r a c t o r s u p p l i e d on t h e c o n t r a c t t o defendant. P l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h i s Court has n o t p r e v i o u s l y r u l e d on what i s t h e proper measure of damages f o r d e f e c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n . However, i n M i t c h e l l v. Carlson, 132 Mont. 1, 5 , 7, 313 P.2d 717, t h e Court d i d c o n s i d e r t h e damage q u e s t i o n i n a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a homeowner's s u i t f o r damages, a s a r e s u l t of a poorly b u i l t home. There t h e Court looked t o t h e s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g t h e measure o f damages, s e c t i o n 17-301, R..C.M. 1947, which provides: For t h e breach of an o b l i g a t i o n a r i s i n g from c o n t r a c t , t h e measure of damages, except where otherwise e x p r e s s l y provided by t h i s code, i s t h e amount which w i l l compens a t e t h e p a r t y aggrieved f o r a l l t h e d e t r i m e n t proximately caused t h e r e b y , o r which, i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of t h i n g s , would be l i k e l y t o r e s u l t therefrom. 11 11 The Court i n M i t c h e l l i n upholding an i n s t r u c t i o n given which was a verbatim r e s t a t e m e n t of s e c t i o n 17-301, R.C.M. 1947, s a i d : "Applying t h e s t a t u t o r y r u l e of damages t o t h i s c a s e i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t p l a i n t i f f s w i l l be compensated only f o r t h e ' d e t r i m e n t proximately caused' by t h e b r e a c h , v i z . , t h e c o s t of making t h e r e p a i r s n e c e s s a r y t o complete t h e house i n accordance w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement. 11 I n M i t c h e l l t h e Court c i t e d an Oklahoma c a s e , N a t i o n a l Surety Co. v. Board of Education, 62 Okl. 259, 162 P. 1108, where t h e Oklahoma c o u r t i n t e r p r e t e d a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o t h a t of Montana and a r r i v e d a t t h e same b a s i s f o r damages. Also i n M i t c h e l l t h e Court quoted from Montgomery v. Karavas, 45 N.M. 287, 114 P.2d 776,781: l h e r e t h e c o n t r a c t o r f a i l s t o keep h i s agreement, t h e measure of t h e employer's [owner's] damages, whether sought i n an independent a c t i o n o r by r e coupment o r c o u n t e r c l a i m , i s always t h e sum which w i l l put him i n a s good a p o s i t i o k a s i f t h e c o n t r a c t had been performed.,If t h e d e f e c t i s remedial from a p r a c t i c a l s t a n d p o i n t , recovery g e n e r a l l y w i l l be based on t h e market p r i c e of completing o r c o r r e c t i n g t h e performance, and t h i s w i l l g e n e r a l l y be shown by t h e c o s t of g e t t i n g work done o r completed by a n o t h e r person. 5 W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s , Sec. 1362. "' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . 11 I *** P l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t t h e Court s o h e l d i n M i t c h e l l because i t was faced w i t h a f a c t s i t u a t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e d t e a r i n g down c o n s t r u c t i o n a l r e a d y i n p l a c e , i n f e r r i n g t h a t such an a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e r u l e should apply i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . Such an a p p l i c a t i o n cannot be given t o t h e f a c t s h e r e f o r , by b o t h c o n t r a c t and s t i p u l a t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s agreed t o a c c e p t t h e s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r ' s d e c i s i o n on a l l q u e s t i o n s a s t o a c c e p t a b l e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e c o n t r a c t by t h e c o n t r a c t o r . Here, we have opinions a s t o t h e c o s t of redoing t h e showers and t h e i r b a s e s t o b r i n g them w i t h i n t h e contract standards. Those opinion f i g u r e s v a r i e d from $300 p e r shower by t h e s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r , t o t h e c o s t f o r t o t a l r e p l a c e ment of $14,886. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e $300 p e r shower f i g u r e o r a t o t a l o f $5,400 would remedy t h e shower s i t u a t i o n . W find e no e r r o r on t h e p a r t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Defendant's i s s u e 2 q u e s t i o n s t h e award of $4500 t o r e p l a c e and r e p a i r t h e e x i t and e n t r a n c e roads. Both p a r t i e s a r g u e t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n s e t t l i n g on t h e f i g u r e o f $$500. alleges the figure i s arbitrary. Defendant P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e (1) t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t an award i n excess of $1,000 and, ( 2 ) because t h e e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m , i n p r e p a r i n g t h e f i n a l p r o g r e s s r e p o r t , deducted $640 from t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e a s a r e s u l t of t h e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y e x i t road, t h a t no damages should be awarded f o r t h e r e p a i r of t h e e x i t road. Not so! Olmstead t e s t i f i e d t h e r e was a one year warranty on t h e r o a d ; t h a t i t was improperly s e a l e d and c o a t e d ; and, t h a t p l a i n t i f f s were warned t h e road might have t o be redone. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h e e x i t road would need r e s u r f a c i n g and e s t i m a t e d t h e e x i t road would c o s t about $1,000 t o r e s u r f a c e and t h e e n t i r e a r e a would c o s t about $7,000 t o r e s u r f a c e . Although Olmstead could n o t s a y whether t h e e n t r a n c e road needed r e s u r f a c i n g a t t h a t time, John Konold t e s t i f i e d t o t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n of both t h e e n t r a n c e and e x i t roads. While t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e v e a l why t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t decided t o award t h e sum of $1,500 f o r t h e r e p a i r of t h e r o a d s , i t was w i t h i n t h e range of - t h e evidence offered. The f a c t t h a t $640 was deducted from t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e would merely r e s u l t i n an o f f s e t from any damages s u f f e r e d by defendant. I t would n o t preclude i t from damages. W f i n d no e error. ~ e f e n d a n t ' si s s u e 3 q u e s t i o n s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of l i q u i d a t e d damages t o defendant f o r t h e 57 day delay. The c o n t r a c t provided f o r l i q u i d a t e d damages a t t h e r a t e of $100 per day f o r g e n e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n ; $100 p e r day f o r t h e b u i l d i n g contract. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e d e l a y , i f any, was c o n t r i b u t e d t o by defendant o r waived by defendant. Mon t Co., I n c . v. United P a c i f i c I n s . Co., 31 %.Rep. W agree. e . B & L Painting , 527 P.2d 554, 868. Were, t h e c o n t r a c t e e caused a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of t h e d e l a y i n t h e b u i l d i n g and i n t h e p r o g r e s s of t h e work. Without any agreement f o r an extens:ion of time t o o f f s e t t h e d e l a y , t h e time f i x e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t and any p r o v i s i o n s f o r l i q u i d a t e d damages based thereon a r e abrogated l e a v i n g t h e c o n t r a c t o r r e s p o n s i b l e only t o complete t h e work w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time. I n c . v. United P a c i f i c I n s . Co., supra; B & L P a i n t i n g Co., A'nno. 152 A.L.R. 1349, 1359; Figgins v. Stevenson, 163 Mont. 425, 517 P.2d 735, 30 St-Rep. 1201. W n o t e h e r e , f o r c o r r e c t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t an e r r o r e was made i n e s t i m a t i n g i n t e r e s t due. The c o n t r a c t , S e c t i o n 7.06, provides : "INTEREST ON UNPAID PROGRESS ESTIMATES: Should t h e Owner f a i l t o pay a Progress Estimate w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) days from t h e d a t e of t h e p r e p a r a t i o n by t h e Engineer, and should he f a i l t o inform t h e Engineer and t h e C o n t r a c t o r i n w r i t i n g of h i s reasons f o r withholding payment, t h e Owner s h a l l pay t h e C o n t r a c t o r i n t e r e s t on t h e amount of t h e P r o g r e s s Estimate a t t h e r a t e of s i x per c e n t (6%) p e r annum u n t i l payment i s made. 11 Progress e s t i m a t e No. 4 covering t h e p e r i o d o f August 20 t o November 11, 1971, d i r e c t e d t h e owner (defendant) t o pay $49,064.45. I t has never been paid. The t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o compute i n t e r e s t from November 11, 1971 t o t h e d a t e of f i l i n g t h e complaint on September 8 , 1972. i s due and owing. A a d d i t i o n a l sum of $2,605.12 n C l i f t o n , Applegate & Toole v. Big Lake Drain D i s t . No. 1, 82 Mont. 312, 267 P. 207. F u r t h e r , t h e judgment should be i n c r e a s e d $350 f o r t h e c o s t of a water v a l v e , allowed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 21. While n o t provided f o r i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , i t was put i n by agreement of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c o n t r a c t o r should be r e i m bursed. ~ e f e n d a n t ' si s s u e 4 concerns t h e payment of a t t o r n e y f e e s . The t r i a l c o u r t awarded p l a i n t i f f s $7,500 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and defendant o b j e c t s t o t h e amount, a l l e g i n g i t was wrongfully awarded. W f i n d no e r r o r . e A s e n i o r member of t h e G a l l a t i n County Bar t e s t i f i e d t h a t f e e s f o r such a c a s e should be from $15,000 t o $27,000. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i g u r e of $7,500, o r approximately t e n p e r c e n t , i s most c e r t a i n l y proper i n view of t h e problems which a r o s e . An a d d i t i o n a l f e e f o r t h i s a p p e a l i s allowed i n t h e amount of $1,000. The cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r e n t r y of judgment i n accordance herewith. L. W Concur: e / * > ' ---h---------C------------------- L Chief J u s t i c e ................................. Justices. M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly concurring i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t : I concur g e n e r a l l y w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y opinion b u t cannot a g r e e w i t h t h e damage award d i s c u s s e d under i s s u e 2 t o r e p l a c e and r e p a i r t h e e x i t and e n t r a n c e roadways. The c o n t r a c t o r surfaced t h e road- way a f t e r being warned by t h e engineer i n charge t h a t i t was n o t ready f o r s u r f a c i n g . The c o n t r a c t o r was informed he might have t o come back and r e p a i r t h e road. The f u l l burden of t h i s road r e s t s on t h e road c o n t r a c t o r under t h e s e circumstances. The deduction on e s t i m a t e #5 made by t h e engineers f o r s e a l o i l and cover aggregate i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a s i t p e r t a i n s t o reconstruct i o n of t h e road and does n o t cover t h a t damage f i g u r e due t h e owner f o r t h e e x i t p o r t i o n , much l e s s t h e entrance. There i s testimony t h a t b o t h e x i t and e n t r a n c e roads need a t t e n t i o n due t o d e t e r i o r a t i o n and t h e e n t i r e job would c o s t $7,000. Under t h e circumstances t h e $1,500 award i s e r r o r . 5' " -- ----Justice. ---
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.
