SEVEN SEAS IMPORT-EXPORT v HANDEE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-52 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 SEVEN SEAS IMPORT-EXPORT INC. , a Mont. Corp. , MERCANTILE, & Plaintiff and Appellant, HANDEE FOODS, INC., a Mont. Corp., and FREDERICK W. KRIEGER, Individually, Defendants and Respondents. .1 from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Raymond W. Brault, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Tipp, Hoven & Skjelset, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided : Filed: JAR 1 4 TPir October 9, 1980 JAB 1 4 m a 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 . Seven S e a s Import-Export & Mercantile, Inc., appeals a summary judgment g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County, t h e Honorable James B. Wheelis p r e s i d i n g , i n f a v o r of Handee Foods, I n c . , F r e d e r i c k W. and Krieger. On August 25, 1978, a p p e l l a n t f i l e d s u i t a l l e g i n g t h r e e claims f o r r e l i e f . Each c l a i m was based on a c o n s t a b l e ' s s a l e , on May 29, 1974, of goods l e f t a t a warehouse owned by Handee Foods, I n c . , and r e n t e d t o Raymond B r a u l t , p r e s i d e n t of Seven S e a s Import-Export & Mercantile, Inc. B r a u l t r e n t e d a p o r t i o n of t h e warehouse from r e s p o n d e n t i n 1973. H e a p p a r e n t l y needed t h e s p a c e t o s t o r e s p e c i f i e d t y p e s o f f i b e r g l a s s i n s u l a t i o n t o b e used i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of m e t a l b u i l d i n g s . A p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s t h a t i n March 1974 i t became necess a r y t o t e r m i n a t e t h e r e n t a l agreement w i t h Handee Foods t o a l l o w a p p e l l a n t ' s performance on c e r t a i n o t h e r c o n t r a c t matters outside t h e state. Seven S e a s a t t h i s t i m e was i n a r r e a r s i n r e n t a l payments amounting t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $896. Appellant f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t B r a u l t wrote t o respond e n t , a d v i s i n g i t o f t h e s i t u a t i o n and g i v i n g r e s p o n d e n t a q u a n t i t y o f t h e i n s u l a t i o n s t o r e d i n t h e warehouse e q u a l i n w h o l e s a l e p r i c e t o t h e amount of r e n t owing. The b a l a n c e of t h e i n s u l a t i o n was t h e n a l l e g e d l y s o l d by a p p e l l a n t t o v a r i o u s o t h e r b u s i n e s s c o n c e r n s which w e r e t o l d t h e y c o u l d o b t a i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e q u a n t i t i e s a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s warehouse. Respondent was a l l e g e d l y informed o f t h e o t h e r purc h a s e r s and was t o r e l e a s e t h e i n s u l a t i o n when t h e y came t o p i c k i t up. A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s , however, r e s p o n d e n t r e f u s e d t o r e l e a s e t h e i n s u l a t i o n , l a i d c l a i m t o t h e e n t i r e t y of t h e s t o r e d i n s u l a t i o n , and t h e n i m p r o p e r l y s o l d i t , r e t a i n i n g t h e proceeds. ~ e s p o n d e n t ,by way o f answer, d e n i e d b e i n g c o n t a c t e d by B r a u l t as t o h i s need t o t e r m i n a t e t h e r e n t a l agreement; d e n i e d a c c e p t i n g any q u a n t i t y of i n s u l a t i o n a s payment of a p p e l l a n t ' s r e n t ; d e n i e d b e i n g informed of t h e s a l e o f t h e b a l a n c e of t h e i n s u l a t i o n t o o t h e r b u s i n e s s c o n c e r n s ; and d e n i e d t h a t any p u r c h a s e r s came t o p i c k up t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e quantities. Respondent t h e n a d m i t s s e l l i n g t h e i n s u l a t i o n s t o r e d i n i t s warehouse f o r nonpayment of r e n t by a p p e l l a n t . A f t e r t h e c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d , a p p e l l a n t s e r v e d v a r i o u s i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on r e s p o n d e n t . Respondent, i n answering them, r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e i n s u l a t i o n was s o l d on May 29, 1974, t o Handee Foods, I n c . , t h e h i g h e s t b i d d e r , f o r $2,424.55. Respondent a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e s a l e was conducted p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 71-3-1203, MCA, by a c o n s t a b l e f o r t h e J u s t i c e C o u r t a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s warehouse. The s a l e w a s a d v e r t i s e d by p o s t i n g n o t i c e on May 1 6 , 1974, i n f i v e p u b l i c p l a c e s i n Missoula County. Respondent a l s o s e r v e d i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on a p p e l l a n t . However, t h e y w e r e n e v e r answered. No s a n c t i o n s w e r e re- q u e s t e d by r e s p o n d e n t , and, t h u s , t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s w e r e n o t p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d s u b m i t t e d on t h e motion f o r summary judgmen t . Respondent f i l e d i t s motion f o r summary judgment on March 23, 1979. A h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r w a s h e l d on ~ p r i l 9 , 1979, a f t e r which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion, f i n d i n g t h a t a l l c l a i m s b r o u g h t by a p p e l l a n t w e r e b a r r e d by a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n . A t the t i m e the ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t made i t s d e c i s i o n , t h e s u b m i t t e d r e c o r d i n c l u d e d t h e c o m p l a i n t , answer, r e s p o n d e n t ' s answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and a n a f f i d a v i t , f i l e d t h e day o f t h e h e a r i n g , s t a t i n g t h a t F. ~ i c k Baker had p u r c h a s e d a q u a n t i t y o f i n s u l a t i o n from a p p e l l a n t b u t was d e n i e d a c c e s s t o t h e goods by r e s p o n d e n t . A p p e l l a n t moved t o v a c a t e t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r on J u n e 8 , 1979. ing. However, c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o n o t e t h e m a t t e r f o r h e a r A f t e r r e c e i p t of t h e motion t o v a c a t e , r e s p o n d e n t s e r v e d on a p p e l l a n t a n o t i c e t h a t t h e motion was deemed d e n i e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., i n t h a t i t had n o t been n o t e d o r h e a r d w i t h i n t e n d a y s of s e r v i c e a s r e q u i r e d . Summary judgment was e n t e r e d on December 1 6 , 1980, and Seven S e a s a p p e a l s . A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s numerous c o l l a t e r a l c o n t e n t i o n s on appeal. The s o l e m a t t e r a t i s s u e , however, i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was p r o p e r i n f i n d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m s a r e b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , p r o p e r i n g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r summary judgment. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e p e r i o d o f l i m i t a t i o n h a s e x p i r e d i n a g i v e n c a s e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o examine two p o i n t s i n time. F i r s t , when t h e d i d t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n which gave r i s e t o t h e s u i t a c c r u e ? a c t i o n commenced? Impor t-Expor t & Second, when was t h e Engine R e b u i l d e r s , I n c . v . Seven S e a s M e r c a n t i l e (198 0 ) P.2d 871, 37 St.Rep. , , Mont. 615 1406. Rule 3 , M.R.Civ.P., provides t h a t a c i v i l a c t i o n i s commenced upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e c o m p l a i n t . I n t h i s in- s t a n c e , t h e s u i t w a s i n i t i a t e d on August 26, 1978. A s t o when t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n a c c r u e d and t h e l i m i t a - t i o n p e r i o d t h u s s t a r t e d t o r u n , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o examine t h e p a r t i c u l a r b a s i s and t h e o r i e s upon which a p p e l l a n t s e e k s relief. A s a b a s i s f o r h i s c a u s e of a c t i o n , a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s i n i t s c o m p l a i n t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t took improper c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i n s u l a t i o n s t o r e d i n i t s warehouse; s o l d i t w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y and t h e n r e t a i n e d t h e p r o c e e d s . In asserting this c a u s e of a c t i o n , a p p e l l a n t makes a c l a i m f o r r e c o v e r y f i r s t on a t h e o r y t h a t a c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t was e s t a b l i s h e d whereby r e s p o n d e n t , a s t r u s t e e , h e l d t h e i n s u l a t i o n and t h e p r o c e e d s t h e r e f r o m f o r t h e b e n e f i t of a p p e l l a n t . A p p e l l a n t t h e n a s s e r t s a second t h e o r y of r e c o v e r y , sounding i n t o r t ( c o n v e r s i o n ) , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s o l d t h e i n s u l a t i o n a t a n i m p r o p e r l y conducted s a l e and, t h u s , i s l i a b l e f o r t h e v a l u e of t h e goods. Appellant f i n a l l y contends, a s a t h i r d claim f o r r e l i e f , t h a t due t o t h e w i l l f u l and wanton d i s r e g a r d of i t s r i g h t s , i t i s e n t i t l e d t o exemplary damages. Upon r e v i e w of a p p e l l a n t ' s c o m p l a i n t , i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e a l l e g e d improper a c t i v i t y g i v i n g r i s e t o a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m of r e c o v e r y o c c u r r e d on o r p r i o r t o t h e d a t e r e s p o n d e n t had t h e i n s u l a t i o n s o l d , May 29, 1974. Conse- q u e n t l y , o v e r f o u r y e a r s have p a s s e d between t h e a c c r u a l of t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n and t h e commencing of s u i t . A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t , i n d e t e r m i n i n g when t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n a c c r u e d , w e s h o u l d n o t look t o t h e d a t e t h e i n s u l a t i o n w a s s o l d b u t t o t h e d a t e a p p e l l a n t made a demand f o r t h e r e t u r n of t h o s e goods, J u l y 1 9 , 1978. Appellant b a s i s t h i s argument on a n a l l e g a t i o n t h a t i t w a s w i t h o u t knowledge of t h e s a l e u n t i l i t made a demand f o r t h e r e t u r n of t h e insulation. I n r e j e c t i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s argument, we n o t e t h a t when a c o u r t i s p r e s e n t e d w i t h a motion f o r summary judgment, it must r e l y on t h e s u b m i t t e d p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e , t o g e t h e r w i t h any s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t s , i n f o r m u l a t i n g i t s r u l i n g on t h e motion. Rule 56 ( c ), M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i l l n o t be h e l d i n e r r o r on t h e b a s i s of documents n o t b e f o r e i t a t t h e t i m e it renders i t s decision. Baylor v. Jacobson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 234, 552 P.2d 55. I n t h i s i n s t a n c e t h e a l l e g a t i o n of l a c k of knowledge, demand and t h e n r e f u s a l t o r e t u r n t h e goods was n o t r a i s e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t , t h e answer, t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s o r i n any a f f i d a v i t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t a t t h e t i m e summary judgment was g r a n t e d . The a l l e g a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l a s a b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i n g t h e D i s - trict Court's ruling. I n p a s s i n g , w e acknowledge t h a t a p p e l l a n t a t t e m p t s t o s u p p o r t t h i s i s s u e on i t s motion t o v a c a t e w i t h a n a f f i d a v i t and copy of a "demand" s e r v e d on r e s p o n d e n t . Appellant, however, f a i l e d t o n o t e t h e motion f o r any c o n s i d e r a t i o n o r adjudication; f u r t h e r , it has f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was u n a v a i l a b l e p r i o r t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g o f t h e summary judgment. Upon r e v i e w i n g t h e s u b m i t t e d r e c o r d p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , even i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o a p p e l l a n t , w e must c o n c l u d e t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s c a u s e of a c t i o n a c c r u e d p r i o r t o o r on May 29, 1974, t h e d a t e of t h e a l l e g e d improper s a l e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , f o u r y e a r s e x p i r e d between a c c r u a l and commencement of t h e a c t i o n . S e c t i o n 27-2-207, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "Tort a c t i o n s involving property. Within 2 y e a r s i s t h e p e r i o d p r e s c r i b e d f o r t h e commencement of a n a c t i o n f o r : " (2) t a k i n g , d e t a i n i n g , o r i n j u r i n g any goods o r chattels, including actions f o r the specific r e c o v e r y of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y ; " C l e a r l y , a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m sounding i n t o r t i s b a r r e d by t h i s two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n . I t c o u l d b e a r g u e d t h a t s e c t i o n 27-2-204, MCA ( s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n f o r g e n e r a l t o r t a c t i o n s ) , i s a p p l i c a b l e . However, t h i s s e c t i o n o n l y e x t e n d s t h e l i m i t a t i o n t o t h r e e y e a r s , and, t h u s , a p p e l l a n t ' s a c t i o n i s s t i l l p r o p e r l y barred. I n r e g a r d t o a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m of c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t , t h e a l l e g e d o b l i g a t i o n ( t h a t respondent held the i n s u l a t i o n o r p r o c e e d s t h e r e f r o m i n t r u s t ) i s one i m p l i e d by law and n o t founded upon a w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t . A s t o such a n i m - p l i e d o b l i g a t i o n , s e c t i o n 27-2-202 ( 3 ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s : " A c t i o n s based - c o n t r a c t - o t h e r o b l i g a t i o n . on or ... " ( 3 ) The p e r i o d p r e s c r i b e d f o r t h e commencement of a n a c t i o n upon a n o b l i g a t i o n o r l i a b i l i t y , o t h e r than a c o n t r a c t , account, o r promise, n o t founded upon a n i n s t r u m e n t i n w r i t i n g i s w i t h i n 3 years. T h e r e f o r e , a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m under a t h e o r y of c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t i s a l s o barred. A s t o t h e c l a i m f o r p u n i t i v e damages, s i n c e t h e under- l y i n g c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s b a r r e d , t h e r e c o v e r y of exemplary damages i s b a r r e d a s w e l l . The d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s a c t i o n i s b a r r e d by a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n i s p r o p e r a s based upon t h e r e c o r d s u b m i t t e d a t t h e t i m e of i t s ruling. The summary judgment i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: - Chief ~ u k t i c e 4 Justices a&, / T h i s c a u s e was s u b m i t t e d p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 5 , 1 9 8 1 .

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.