O NEIL LUMBER CO v NICKELODEON CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-190 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 O'NEIL LUMBER COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsTHE NICKELODEON COMPANIES, DORIS PICCARTER, Secretary, J. R. McCARTER, Presidient, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: Dist. Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, The Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Jerry O'Neil, Pro Se, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent : E. Eugene Atherton, Kalispell, Montana LL 3 1 < Submitted on Briefs: Decided: August 13, 1980 ' p p 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 C o u r t . O f N e i l Lumber Company, p r o c e e d i n g p r o se, f i l e d s u i t i n t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County o f F l a t h e a d , a l l e g i n g The Nickelodeon Companies had f a i l e d t o make payment on m a t e r i a l s s u p p l i e d by O ' N e i l . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d judgment i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f b u t would n o t a l l o w a t t o r n e y f e e s o r i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e of 1 . 5 p e r c e n t p e r month on t h e unpaid b a l a n c e a s asked. P l a i n t i f f appeals. On J u l y 3 0 and August 9 of 1979, d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d t o p u r c h a s e c e r t a i n b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s from p l a i n t i f f f o r $1,666.60. The p u r c h a s e s w e r e i t e m i z e d and i d e n t i f i e d on four invoices. Each i n v o i c e s t a t e d t h a t a 1 . 5 p e r c e n t s e r v i c e c h a r g e would b e l e v i e d on p a s t - d u e a c c o u n t s . The m a t e r i a l s w e r e d e l i v e r e d , b u t a f t e r numerous r e q u e s t s by p l a i n t i f f , d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o t e n d e r payment. On November 5, 1979, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a m e c h a n i c ' s l i e n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t ' s r e a l p r o p e r t y i n t h e amount of $1,716.96, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e amount due on t h e unpaid a c c o u n t and a s e r v i c e c h a r g e a t t h e r a t e of 1 . 5 p e r c e n t f o r two months. P l a i n t i f f a l s o asked f o r post-judgment i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e of 1 . 5 p e r c e n t p e r month, a t t o r n e y f e e s , and c o s t s . The p r e s e n t a c t i o n was f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f o r e c l o s u r e of s a i d lien. Af ter t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d p l a i n t i f f s motion f o r summary judgment, 1 6 , 1980. t h e m a t t e r was t r i e d i n chambers on May A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a c o n f e s s i o n of judgment f o r t h e f u l l amount of t h e p u r c h a s e s , p l u s i n t e r e s t a t a l e g a l r a t e and a l l accumulated and t a x able costs. P l a i n t i f f r e j e c t e d t h e c o n f e s s i o n of judgment. v he ~ i s t r i c C o u r t t h e r e a f t e r r e n d e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t , t c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e amount of p u r c h a s e s $1,666.60, p l u s i n t e r e s t a t a rate o f 1 0 p e r c e n t p e r annum and a l l accumulated and t a x a b l e c o s t s amounting t o $ 3 7 . 0 4 . attorney fees The t r i a l c o u r t d i s a l l o w e d . Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s a l l o w i n g a s li- q u i d a t e d damages a s e r v i c e c h a r g e a t a r a t e of 1 . 5 p e r c e n t p e r month on t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e . 2. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w attorney fees. Appellant argues t h a t t h e invoices specifying an i n t e r e s t r a t e o f 1 . 5 p e r c e n t on t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e c o u p l e d w i t h r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r i o r d e a l i n g w i t h him i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o r e p r e s e n t a c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n and s h o u l d be e n f o r c e d a s such. Respondent, on t h e o t h e r hand, a r g u e s t h a t a p p e l - l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o p l e a d and p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e of a w r i t t e n agreement, s i g n e d by b o t h p a r t i e s , p r e s c r i b i n g t h e e x a c t t e r m s of t h e r e t a i l i n s t a l l m e n t t r a n s a c t i o n , p r e v e n t a p p e l l a n t from b e i n g e n t i t l e d t o a 1 . 5 p e r c e n t s e r v i c e c h a r g e . Respondent f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o p l e a d and p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t i n w r i t i n g f i x i n g a d i f f e r e n t r a t e o f i n t e r e s t p r e c l u d e s i t from c o l l e c t i n g post-judgment i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e i n e x c e s s of t h a t a l l o w e d by l a w . Regarding t h e f i r s t i s s u e , s e c t i o n 31-1-241(4), MCA, of t h e Montana R e t a i l I n s t a l l m e n t S a l e s A c t , s t a t e s t h a t ". . . a r e t a i l c h a r g e a c c o u n t agreement may p r o v i d e f o r and t h e s e l l e r o r h o l d e r may c h a r g e , c o l l e c t , and r e c e i v e a f i n a n c e c h a r g e a s s p e c i f i e d h e r e i n f o r t h e p r i v i l e g e of p a y i n g i n s t a l l m e n t s thereunder." The f i n a n c e c h a r g e may n o t exceed a monthly r a t e o f 1 . 5 p e r c e n t . This s t a t u t e c l e a r l y indi- c a t e s t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e c h a r g e d by a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t i n e x c e s s of t h a t a l l o w e d by law. The q u e s t i o n remaining i s whether i n v o i c e s r e p r e s e n t a r e t a i l i n s t a l l m e n t c o n t r a c t . W e remember t h e words o f J u s t i c e John H . C l a r k e : "The p a r t i e s t o t h e c o n t r a c t , w i t h f u l l unders t a n d i n g of t h e r e s u l t s of d e l a y , and b e f o r e d i f f e r e n c e s o r i n t e r e s t e d views had a r i s e n between them, w e r e much more competent t o j u s t l y d e t e r m i n e what t h e amount of damage would be--an amount n e c e s s a r i l y l a r g e l y conj e c t u r a l and r e s t i n g i n e s t i m a t e - - t h a n a c o u r t o r j u r y would be Wise v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 249 U.S. 361, 366-67, 39 S.Ct. 303, 63 L.Ed. 647. . . ." W h o l d t h a t t h e i n v o i c e s , two of which w e r e s i g n e d by b o t h e p a r t i e s , d e s c r i b i n g t h e m a t e r i a l s p u r c h a s e d and s t a t i n g t h e amount, i n c l u d i n g i n t e r e s t r a t e t o be c h a r g e d , a r e s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o o b l i g a t e r e s p o n d e n t t o pay 1 . 5 p e r c e n t on t h e unpaid b a l a n c e from September 1979 t o May 1980. Although t h e i n v o i c e s do n o t meet a l l t h e s t a t u t o r y s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of a r e t a i l i n s t a l l m e n t c o n t r a c t , t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i s i n i s s u e ; t h e r e f u r e , a p p e l l a n t ' s admiss i o n as t o t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of t h e i n v o i c e s and a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n f e s s i o n of judgment more t h a n a d e q u a t e l y e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s e p u r c h a s e s w e r e r e t a i l i n s t a l l m e n t t r a n s a c t i o n s and s h o u l d be e n f o r c e d a s s u c h . See S28-2-905 (1)( b ) , MCA. p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 25-9-205, Also, MCA, r e s p o n d e n t i s l i a b l e f o r post-judgment i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e of 1 0 p e r c e n t p e r annum p l u s accumulated and t a x a b l e c o s t s amounting t o $37.04. There was no e v i d e n c e o r c o n t e n t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t t h a t J e r r y O ' N e i l , a v i c e p r e s i d e n t of and a t t o r n e y p r o se f o r O ' N e i l Lumber Company, i s d u l y a d m i t t e d and l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e law i n Montana. S e c t i o n 37-61-215, MCA, p r o v i d e s : " I t s h a l l b e u n l a w f u l f o r any c o u r t w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e t o a l l o w a t t o r n e y f e e s i n any act i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e s a i d c o u r t i n which a t t o r n e y f e e s a r e a l l o w e d by law t o e i t h e r p a r t y t o s u c h a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g when such p a r t y i s r e p r e s e n t e d by anyone o t h e r t h a n a d u l y a d m i t t e d o r l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y a t law." T h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t err i n r e f u s i n g a p p e l l a n t attorney fees. The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d a s t o t h e r e f u s a l of a t t o r n e y f e e s and t h e a l l o w a n c e of post-judgment i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e of 10 p e r c e n t p e r annum p l u s c o s t s ; t h e judgment i s r e v e r s e d a s t o t h e d i s a l l o w a n c e of a 1 . 5 p e r c e n t s e r v i c e c h a r g e a s l i q u i d a t e d damages. W concur: e "bndd 94l&&QQp Chief J u s t i c e Justices
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.
