REIDY v ANACONDA-DEER LODGE COUNTY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-305 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 MICHAEL T. REIDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, ANACONDA-DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Deer Lodge Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Haxby and Sweeney, Butte, Montana Bradley L. Belke argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Poore, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, Butte, Montana Douglas A. Buxbaum argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: Decided: B " Clerk December 4, 1981 ylt 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. Mr. I n an a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t by a d e v e l o p e r of a p r o j e c t e d s h o p p i n g mall complex a g a i n s t t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d c i t y c o u n t y g o v e r n m e n t o f Anaconda-Deer Lodge C o u n t y , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e d e v e l o p e r s t r i k i n g h i s claim f o r l o s s o f a p e r c e n t a g e o f income and o w n e r s h i p o f t h e p r o p o s e d complex. The d e v e l o p e r a p p e a l s . W e v a c a t e t h e summary j udgment and remand f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . I n J u n e , 1 9 7 8 , p l a i n t i f f M i c h a e l R e i d y and d e f e n d a n t Anaconda-Deer Lodge C o u n t y e n t e r e d i n t o a n a g r e e m e n t f o r t h e d e v e - l o p m e n t o f a s h o p p i n g m a l l complex i n a s i x - b l o c k a r e a o f downtown A n a c o n d a , Montana. I n November 1 9 7 9 , R e i d y f i l e d a n a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t a g a i n s t Anaconda-Deer Lodge C o u n t y a l l e g i n g t h a t it f a i l e d t o p u r c h a s e t h e l a n d f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t and t r a n s f e r i t t o R e i d y f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n as r e q u i r e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t , and f u r t h e r terminated the c o n t r a c t u n i l a t e r a l l y without j u s t cause . H e s o u g h t damages o f $ 5 1 9 , 7 9 1 . 2 8 c o n s i s t i n g o f (1) c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n a t t e m p t i n g to perform t h e c o n t r a c t ($19,791.28); ( 2 ) loss of b u i l d e r ' s p r o f i t ( $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 ) ; and ( 3 ) l o s s o f h i s p e r c e n t a g e o f income and o w n e r s h i p o f t h e complex ( $ 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) . Anaconda-Deer Lodge C o u n t y moved f o r p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t on t h e l a s t i t e m o f c l a i m e d damages c o n t e n d i n g t h a t d a m a g e s c a n n o t be awarded f o r l o s t p r o f i t s o f a n u n e s t a b l i s h e d business. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t h o l d i n g t h a t no r e c o v e r y c o u l d be awarded f o r R e i d y l s a l l e g e d l o s s o f a p e r c e n t a g e o f income and o w n e r s h i p of t h e c o m p l e t e d c o m p l e x . On J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 , R e i d y a p p e a l e d from t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t . T h e r e a f t e r o n A u g u s t 1 8 R e i d y moved f o r cer- t i £ i c a t i o n u n d e r R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ. P . , t h a t t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t was f i n a l i n n a t u r e so a s to r e n d e r it a p p e a l a b l e . On August 1 9 , t h e District Court granted Rule 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s o r d e r o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n and i n i t s meinorandum o p i n i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t it had c o n s i d e r e d t h e f a c - t o r s e n u m e r a t e d i n Roy v . N e i b a u e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) , P.2d 1 1 8 5 , 37 S t . R e p . 897. . Mont -- r 610 I t i n d i c a t e d t h a t R e i d y was e n t i t l e d t o a f a v o r a b l e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r cert i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d be g r a n t e d b e c a u s e t h i s case was of s u c h a n i n £ r e q u e n t and h a r s h n a t u r e t h a t c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d be g r a n t e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t items o f c l a i m e d damages d i d n o t o v e r l a p ; t h a t t h e r e w a s no p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s e t o f f ; t h a t t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t would n o t be o b l i g e d to cons i d e r t h i s i s s u e a s e c o n d t i m e ; t h a t it i n t e n d e d i t s r u l i n g to be f i n a l ; and t h a t t h e d e l a y , d e t r i m e n t a l e c o n o m i c c o n s e q u e n c e s and u n w a r r a n t e d a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n s e would be u n j u s t to R e i d y . The i s s u e p o s i t e d by R e i d y i n t h i s a p p e a l is w h e t h e r damag e s are a l l o w a b l e i n a b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t a c t i o n f o r l o s t p r o f i t s of an unestablished business. W e do n o t reach t h i s i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l . W w i l l not e p e r m i t c a s e s to be f r a g m e n t e d i n t h i s manner t o allow s u c c e s s i v e a p p e a l s i n a s i n g l e c a s e where r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e available. Such a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a n u n j u s t i f i a b l e waste of s c a r c e j u d i c i a l t i m e and r e s o u r c e s . W e r e p e a t w h a t w e s a i d i n Roy v . Neibauer, supra. If a t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e s i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c e r t i f y i n g a n o r d e r of summ a r y j u d g m e n t as f i n a l u n d e r R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t is w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n t h e a p p e a l . Allis-Chalmers C o r p . v . P h i l a d e l p h i a E l e c t r i c Co. ( 3 r d C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 5 2 1 F.2d 360. An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o r m a l l y c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s when c o n s i d e r i n g a R u l e 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n : ( 1 ) The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e a d j u d i c a t e d and unadj ud i c a t e d claims ; ( 2 ) The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e need f o r r e v i e w m i g h t or m i g h t n o t be mooted b y f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ; ( 3 ) The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m i g h t be o b l i g e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e same i s s u e a s e c o n d t i m e ; (4) The p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e of a c l a i m or c o u n t e r c l a i m which c o u l d r e s u l t i n a s e t o f f a g a i n s t t h e judgment s o u g h t t o be made f i n a l ; ( 5 ) M i s c e l l a n e o u s f a c t o r s s u c h a s d e l a y , economic and s o l v e n c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , s h o r t e n i n g t h e t i m e of t r i a l , t r i v i a l i t y o f c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s , e x p e n s e and t h e l i k e . Roy v . N e i b a u e r , s u p r a ; S i n g e r Housing Co. v . Seven L a k e s V e n t u r e ( D . C o l o . 1 9 7 9 ) , 466 F.Supp. 369. Here w e a r e a s k e d to h e a r , d e t e r m i n e and i s s u e a n o p i n i o n o n w h e t h e r o n e o f t h r e e items o f damage is p e r m i s s i b l e b e f o r e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y f o r - damages h a s o c c u r r e d . any While i t is t r u e t h a t s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n a d v a n c e of t r i a l would f i n a l l y s e t t l e t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h a t i t e m and m i g h t r e d u c e t r i a l time, i t is e q u a l l y t r u e t h a t d e l a y i n g t h e t r i a l p e n d i n g d e t e r - m i n a t i o n o f t h a t i s s u e on a p p e a l r e s u l t s i n u n d e s i r a b l e consequences, v i z . , unwarranted d e l a y , a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s involving f i l i n g f e e s , p r e p a r a t i o n o f b r i e f s , t r a v e l l i n g to t h e S t a t e C a p i t o l f o r o r a l a r g u m e n t and a d d i t i o n a l a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s on a p p e a l . C o n s i d e r a t i o n and b a l a n c i n g of t h e s e com- p e t i n g f a c t o r s is r e q u i r e d u n d e r o u r o p i n i o n i n Roy v . N e i b a u e r , supra. T h e i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l m i g h t w e l l be mooted by f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t , a n o t h e r f a c t o r t o be conC Roy. s i d e r e d under - A f i n d i n g o f no l i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t b y j u d g e or j u r y would c e r t a i n l y moot any i s s u e of damages. R e a s o n a b l e a 1t e r n a t i v e s t o a f r a g m e n t e d a p p e a l a r e available in t h i s case. The t r i a l c o u l d be b i f u r c a t e d w i t h t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y f i r s t determined b e f o r e a d d r e s s i n g any i s s u e o f damages. Mon t damages . Rule 4 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.; , 589 P.2d Monaco v. C e c c o n i ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 5 6 ; 36 S t . R e p . 113. I f t h e i s s u e of were r e a c h e d i n e i t h e r a b i f u r c a t e d o r n o n b i f u r c a t e d t r i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e c o u l d a d m i t a l l e v i d e n c e of damages p r o v i s i o n a l l y s u b j e c t t o a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o l l o w i n g judgment. U s e o f e i t h e r or b o t h a l t e r n a t i v e s m i g h t moot t h e i s s u e now on I n a n y e v e n t it would e l i m i n a t e f r a g m e n t a t i o n of a s i n g l e c a s e appeal. i n t o t w o o r more a p p e a l s and p e r m i t t h i s C o u r t to d e t e r m i n e a l l i s s u e s i n one a p p e a l . W e v a c a t e t h e p a r t i a l summary j udgment w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o p e r m i t t h e District C o u r t to c o n s i d e r t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s . For t h e foregoing r e a s o n s , we hold t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n under Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., proceed ings and remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r . Chief W e concur: Justices [ / J U S ~ ~ C ~

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.