MARTA v SMITH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-81 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA JACK A. MARTA, ROBERT D. MARTA and DAVID A. MARTA, Plaintiffs and Appellants, DOUGLAS L. SMITH and EFFIE L. SMITH, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Madison. Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Morrow, Sedivy, Olson and Scully, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Jardine, McCarthy and Grauman, whitehall, Montana Submitted on briefs: September 25, 1980 Decided: :DM Filed: Jkl\; 1 - $1 . Clerk 1 2 1981 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. P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l f r o m a judgment e n t e r e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Madison C o u n t y , i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s o n a l l i s s u e s . The p l a i n t i f f s were d e n i e d a n e x c l u s i v e p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t to a r o a d w a y , were f o u n d t o be i n w r o n g f u l p o s s e s s i o n of t h e i r " y a r d s p a c e " , and were e n j o i n e d f r o m u s i n g a n i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m across d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d , u n t i l p l a i n t i f f s p a i d d e f e n d a n t s f o r damages thereto. W e af f i r m i n p a r t , v a c a t e i n p a r t , and remand to D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g o n a t t o r n e y f e e s and p l a i n t i f f s ' motion t o s t r i k e . T h i s d i s p u t e a r o s e between a d j a c e n t landowners n e a r S h e r i d a n , Montana, and i n v o l v e s s e v e r a l p i e c e s o f p r o p e r t y . The Martas f a r m a b o u t 200 acres and t h e f a m i l y h a s b e e n i n p o s s e s s i o n s i n c e 1904. The S m i t h s own a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 5 acres l y i n g s o u t h of t h e Martas, and a d d i t i o n a l a c r e a g e l y i n g n o r t h and e a s t of t h e Martas. They h a v e b e e n i n p o s s e s s i o n s i n c e 1 9 7 7 . The r o a d t o t h e Marta home r u n s p a r t l y o v e r t h e S m i t h p r o p e r t y , and h a s b e e n u s e d by t h e Martas and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s , i n t h e same l o c a t i o n s i n c e a n y o n e i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d c a n recall. A f t e r S m i t h s moved i n , t h e y and o t h e r p e r s o n s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s began u s i n g t h e road w i t h o u t Martas' permission. Martas r e q u e s t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s q u i t u s i n g t h e roadway, which d e f e n d a n t s r e f used to do. I n May 1 9 7 8 , Martas b r o u g h t a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n , i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h an e x c l u s i v e p r e s c r i p t i v e easement i n themselves f o r t h e u s e o f t h e roadway. They a l s o s o u g h t to e n j o i n d e f e n d a n t s f r o m u s e o f t h e r o a d , and r e q u e s t e d damages f r o m d e f e n d a n t s to compensate p l a i n t i f f s f o r t h e p a s t use. D e f e n d a n t s c o u n t e r c l a i m e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f s , s e e k i n g to q u i e t t i t l e to t h e road i n themselves. S m i t h s f u r t h e r s o u g h t to h a v e a n area o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2/10 acre ( t h e " y a r d s p a c e " ) r e s t o r e d t o them, and t o e n j o i n p l a i n t i f f s f r o m u s e o f a n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h o v e r d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d and t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r damage c a u s e d by n e g l i g e n t u s e o f t h e d i t c h . F o l l o w i n g t r i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t judge e n t e r e d h i s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . H e found a p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t i n M a r t a s f o r t h e u s e of t h e roadway, b u t he d e t e r m i n e d t h a t it was a n e a s e m e n t common t o t h e p a r t i e s . H e r e f u s e d to e n j o i n d e f e n d a n t s ' u s e . A l t h o u g h M a r t a s were found t o h a v e a d v e r s e l y p o s s e s s e d t h e " y a r d s p a c e , " t h e d i s t r i c t judge r e f u s e d t o uphold t h e c l a i m b e c a u s e M a r t a s c o u l d p r e s e n t no e v i d e n c e of h a v i n g p a i d t h e t a x e s . F i n a l l y , t h e j u d g e found t h a t M a r t a s ' u s e of t h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m c r o s s i n g S m i t h s ' l a n d was n e g l i g e n t , and had c a u s e d c u t t i n g and e r o d i n g of S m i t h s ' l a n d . H e o r d e r e d M a r t a s to c e a s e u s i n g t h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m u n t i l it was r e p a i r e d , o r u n t i l t h e y p a i d d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e damage c a u s e d by t h e u s e . The p l a i n t i f f s r a i s e s e v e r a l i s s u e s on a p p e a l : (1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t p l a i n - t i f f s had a c q u i r e d a p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t , b u t n o t a n e x c l u s i v e easement, a c r o s s defendants' land? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n n o t e n j o i n i n g d e f e n d a n t s ' u s e of t h e roadway and i n n o t r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t s t o c o m p e n s a t e p l a i n t i f f s f o r damage c a u s e d t o t h e roadway? ( 3 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n d e n y i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n of t h e y a r d s p a c e , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d s h o w i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' p o s s e s s i o n s i n c e 1 9 0 4 ? ( 4 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n d e n y i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s cont i n u e d u s e of t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h u n l e s s p l a i n t i f f s p a i d f o r damages done t o d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d ? ( 5 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n a w a r d i n g $2500 i n a t t o r - ney f e e s ? ( 6 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n a w a r d i n g c o s t s t o defendants? Both p a r t i e s to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n concede t h a t t h e M a r t a s e s t a b l i s h e d a p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t i n t h e roadway w h e r e i t crosses Smiths' land. A t i s s u e i s t h e e x t e n t of the r i g h t a c q u i r e d by M a r t a s , t h a t i s , w h e t h e r b o t h S m i t h s and M a r t a s h a v e a r i g h t t o use t h e road, or whether Martas acquired an easement w i t h e x c l u s i v e and p r i v a t e u s e i n t h e m s e l v e s . Based on t h e t e s t i m o n y , t h e d i s t r i c t judge s t a t e d i n h i s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s : ... " s a i d r i g h t o f way as h e r e i n b e f o r e d e s c r i b e d is a common r i g h t o f way t h a t h a s b e e n a c q u i r e d by t h e p a r t i e s by r i g h t o f p r e s c r i p t i o n ( a s t o t h o s e p o r t i o n s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y owned by t h e p a r t i e s ) a n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s are e n t i t l e d t o t h e common u s e of t h e e x i s t i n g roadway f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f i n g r e s s and egress to their respective properties. . ." Martas o b j e c t t o t h e "common u s e , I r and c o n t e n d t h a t t h e l a w and t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e i r p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e y s h o u l d h a v e a c q u i r e d an e x c l u s i v e easement. I t is s e t t l e d l a w i n Montana t h a t i n a c q u i r i n g a p r e s c r i p - t i v e e a s e m e n t , " t h e r i g h t o f t h e o w n e r of t h e d o m i n a n t e s t a t e i s g o v e r n e d by t h e c h a r a c t e r and e x t e n t of t h e u s e d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d r e q u i s i t e t o a c q u i r e it." F e r g u s o n v. S t a n d l e y ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 8 9 Mont. 4 8 9 , 5 0 2 , 300 P. 245, 250; 28 C.J.S. E a s e m e n t s $89. Therefore, Martas' u s e o f t h e roadway c a n n o t e x c e e d t h e u s e w h i c h t h e y made o f it d u r i n g t h e p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d . Hayden v. Snowden ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 1 6 9 , 1 7 5 , 5 7 6 P.2d 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 1 9 ; S t a t e of Montana b y and t h r o u g h t h e Montana F i s h Cronin (1978), Mont . , & Game Commission e t a l . v . 5 8 7 P.2d 395, 4 0 1 , 3 5 S t . R e p . 1798, 1805. A t t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f s a t t e m p t e d t o show t h a t a l l p e r s o n s who had u s e d t h e r o a d had d o n e s o o n l y w i t h t h e p e r m i s s i o n of Martas, t h u s e s t a b l i s h i n g a n e x c l u s i v e and p r i v a t e u s e r i g h t i n Martas. S m i t h s c o u n t e r e d w i t h w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r o a d had a l w a y s b e e n i n common u s a g e , and t h a t Martas' p e r m i s s i o n had never been s o u g h t f o r t h e use. E f f i e Smith t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u r i n g a summer of i r r i g a t i n g , s h e had u s e d t h e r o a d s e v e r a l t i m e s a d a y w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n from M a r t a s . A p r e d e c e s s o r of S m i t h s who had owned t h e p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e 1 9 6 0 ' s t e s t i f i e d t o u s i n g t h e r o a d a t l e a s t s e v e r a l times a week, and more o f t e n when h e had c a t t l e t o t e n d o r hay t o p u t up. H e moved c a t t l e and farm equipment a c r o s s t h e road without permission. The f i n d i n g s o f t h e j u d g e i n d i c a t e t h a t h e f o u n d d e f e n d a n t s ' t e s t i m o n y more p e r s u a s i v e . H e f o u n d t h a t t h e Martas' e s t a b l i s h e d u s e was n o t t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of a l l o t h e r s . Although M a r t a s ' u s e was " e x c l u s i v e " i n t h e s e n s e n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h a p r e s c r i p t i v e u s e i n t h e Martas, S c o t t v. W e i n h e i m e r ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 4 0 Mont. 554, 561-62, 374 P.2d 9 1 , 95-96, Martas c a n n o t e s t a b l i s h a p r i v a t e or e x c l u s i v e e a s e m e n t w h e r e it is shown t h a t o t h e r p e r s o n s have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e use. , Mont. a t a t 1 8 0 5 ; 28 C. J . S . 587 P.2d a t 401, 3 5 S t . R e p . Cronin, supra, E a s e m e n t s S15. T h e r e was ample t e s t i m o n y as t o t h e p r i o r u s e s made of t h e roadway. W e f i n d t h a t t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judge's f i n d i n g s o f a common e a s e m e n t , w i t h t h e e x t e n t of u s e d e f i n e d by t h e u s e made d u r i n g t h e p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d . f i n d i n g s w h e r e t h e y a r e sup- not overturn the d i s t r i c t judge's p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . 374 P.2d a t 96. We w i l l S c o t t , s u p r a , 1 4 0 Mont. a t 5 6 2 , However, w e d o f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e i n c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s were e n t i t l e d to t h e u s e of a n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h r u n n i n g p a r a l l e l to and e a s t e r l y o f t h e r o a d way i n q u e s t i o n . Despite the f a c t t h a t defendants did not ask f o r t h i s r e l i e f , t h e d i s t r i c t judge determined t h a t d e f e n d a n t s h a d a c q u i r e d t h i s r i g h t by p r e s c r i p t i o n . T h i s i s s u e was n o t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and is n o t a p a r t o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . Therefore w e v a c a t e t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment. Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , w e f i n d a l s o t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge p r o p e r l y denied t h e p l a i n t i f f s' r e q u e s t f o r an i n j u n c t i o n , a n d t h e i r claim f o r damages f o r r u t t i n g and d i s r e p a i r of t h e roadway. F i n d i n g No. 8 i n d i c a t e s : " T h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s have m a i n t a i n e d s a i d roadway t h r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r s b u t h a v e d o n e s o v o l u n t a r i l y and w i t h o u t r e q u e s t f o r c o n t r i b u t i o n f r o m t h e d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t no damages t o s a i d r o a d w a y were c a u s e d t h r o u g h t h e f a u l t o r n e g l e c t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t d e f e n d a n t s a r e n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r damages, i f any, s u s t a i n e d or c l a i m e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . " The t e s t i m o n y o f d e f e n d a n t s shows t h a t d e f e n d a n t s and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s u s e d t h e roadway f o r c a r r y i n g o n a f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n , d r i v i n g a n i m a l s and m a c h i n e r y o v e r i t . In maintaining t h e i r p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t , p l a i n t i f f s h a v e k e p t t h e roadway up d e s p i t e t h i s u s e by d e f e n d a n t s and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s . Martas a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o damages f o r t h e p r o p e r u s e s t o which d e f e n d a n t s p u t t h e roadway. N e i t h e r a r e t h e y e n t i t l e d to a n i n j u n c - t i o n t o p r e v e n t d e f e n d a n t s f r o m p u t t i n g t h e roadway to t h e u s e s c o n s i s t e n t with defendants' i n t e r e s t i n the land. Smiths cannot p r e v e n t M a r t a s ' u s e o f t h e roadway, j u s t as Marta c a n n o t claim a n e x c l u s i v e p r i v a t e p r e s c r i p t i v e easement. C. J.S. S e e S c o t t , s u p r a ; 28 Easements 891. M a r t a s n e x t contend t h a t t h e judge e r r e d i n denying t h e i r claim t o t h e " y a r d s p a c e . " The f i n d i n g s show t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s f e n c e d i n and c u l t i v a t e d a p o r t i o n of d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d s and t h a t ". . . t h e p l a i n t i f f s claim t h a t t h e y a r e t h e o w n e r s o f and i n p o s s e s s i o n of s a i d t r a c t and t h a t t h e y have proved t h a t t h e y have occupied t e Sam o p e n 1 noto i s l y exc u s i e l a v e r s e f y , unlXterrupEe8Yy, ~ i s l b f ~ , XosXf.lely, a c t u a l l y , and u n d e r a claim of r i g h t , and t h a t p l a i n t i f f s , or t h e i r predecessors caused t h e same t o be p a r t i a l l y e n c l o s e d by a f e n c e , b u t t h a t p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o show by a n y e v i d e n c e w h a t s o e v e r t h e payment o f t a x e s upon s a i d l a n d s b y them a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e i r claim of o c c u p a n c y and o w n e r s h i p by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n c a n n o t be s u s t a i n e d by r e a s o n of S e c t i o n 70-19-411, MCA 1 9 7 9 ( S e c . 93-2513, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) , a n d , t h e r e f o r t h e i r 'claim o f o w n e r s h i p by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n fails 8 . . ." Martas a d m i t t o n o t p a y i n g a n y t a x e s , b u t c o n t e n d t h a t t h e i r a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n claim s h o u l d be s u s t a i n e d b e c a u s e t h e y have been i n p o s s e s s i o n s i n c e 1904. N o s t a t u t e r e q u i r i n g payment o f t a x e s w a s i n e f f e c t u n t i l 1 9 1 7 , and claims made p r i o r to t h a t t i m e are deemed c o m p l e t e d w i t h o u t a n y e v i d e n c e of t a x e s b e i n g paid. T h i b a u l t v. F l y n n ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 3 3 Mont. 4 6 1 , 466, 3 2 5 P.2d 9 1 4 , 917. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e f o u n d a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , b u t d i s a l l o w e d t h e claim b e c a u s e of t h e nonpayment of t a x e s . H e made n o f i n d i n g as t o t h e d a t e o f t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e claim. T h a t no a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d p r i o r to 1 9 1 7 i s n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i e d i n t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and is sup- p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . W e n o t e t h a t t h e argument a d v a n c e d i n T h i b a u l t , s u p r a , was b r i e f e d by c o u n s e l , and t h e f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e j u d g e f o u n d it t o be i n a p p l i c a b l e . His j u d g m e n t is p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and w e w i l l d r a w e v e r y l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e to s u p p o r t t h a t presumption. B Lodge P o l e T i m b e r P r o d . 37 S t . R e p . 905-906, (1980), 1468, 1473. Madison F o r k Ranch v . L Mont. , & 6 1 5 P.2d 9 0 0 , W e uphold t h e d i s t r i c t judge's c o n c l u s i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t s are e n t i t l e d to immediate p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e y a r d s p a c e , b e c a u s e a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n was n o t established. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e f o u n d t h a t f o r many y e a r s p l a i n t i f f s h a v e d i v e r t e d i r r i g a t i o n water a t a p o i n t o n d e f e n d a n t s ' land, and t h a t t h e y have e x e r c i s e d t h e i r d i t c h r i g h t s i n a "careless, negligent, i r r e s p o n s i b l e and w r o n g f u l m a n n e r , " defendants1 land. c a u s i n g damage t o H e c o n c l u d e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s were n o t t o irri- g a t e f u r t h e r u n t i l t h e damage was r e p a i r e d and t h e s y s t e m r e o r g a n i z e d t o p r e v e n t f u r t h e r damage. H e f o u n d damages i n t h e amount o f $5500. P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e j u d g e e r r e d i n f i n d i n g damage t o d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d s , b e c a u s e t h e t e s t i m o n y showed o n l y t h a t " w a s h i n g " had t a k e n p l a c e . They a r g u e t h a t Montana law d o e s n o t i m p o s e t h e d u t y o f a n i n s u r e r o n t h e owner o f a d i t c h , and mere w a s h i n g d o e s n o t show a n y f a u l t o n t h e p a r t o f t h e i r r i g a t o r . P l a i n t i f f s a r e correct i n s t a t i n g t h a t a n o w n e r o f a d i t c h is n o t an a b s o l u t e i n s u r e r . C a l v e r t e t a l . v . Anderson e t a l . ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 7 3 Mont. 5 5 1 , 5 5 5 , 236 P. 8 4 7 , 8 4 8 ; F l e m i n g v. Lockwood ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 3 6 Mont. 3 8 4 , 391-92, 92 P. 9 6 2 , 9 6 4 . But t h i s C o u r t h a s n o t a l l o w e d a n y and e v e r y u s e o f i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s , and h a s approved j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s which p r e s e n t t h e i s s u e of n e g l i g e n c e i n c o n s t r u c t i o n o r use t o t h e jury. 386-93, F l e m i n g , s u p r a , 3 6 Mont. a t 9 2 P. a t 962-65. Mr. S m i t h t e s t i f i e d t o e r o s i o n and c u t t i n g away o f t h e s o i l on b o t h s i d e s of t h e d i t c h . Mr. Marsh, who t e s t i f i e d to i r r i g a t i n g f o r t h e Martas, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e had b e e n c u t t i n g a t t h e c o r n e r o f t h e d i t c h and "bad w a s h i n g " a t t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h t h e i r r i g a t i o n p i p e comes o u t . An a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s , J o h n S i m p s o n , who t e s t i f i e d t o b e i n g a c o n t r a c t o r and d o i n g work f o r t h e S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e , i n d i c a t e d t h a t it would t a k e $ 5 5 0 0 t o make t h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s u i t a b l e , t o p r e v e n t f u r t h e r w a s h i n g on S m i t h s ' l a n d , and t o r e p a i r p a s t damage. W e f i n d t h i s e v i d e n c e t o be s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t t h e judge's f i n d i n g s o f n e g l i g e n c e and c a r e l e s s n e s s i n p l a i n t i f f s ' irrigation practices, and h i s f i n d i n g of damages of $5500. We w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e when t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to s u p p o r t h i s f i n d i n g s . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e I s c o n c l u s i o n No. 5 provided f o r d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n which p r e v e n t e d S m i t h s f r o m u s i n g t h e roadway. H e o r d e r e d p l a i n t i f f s to p a y $ 2 5 0 0 a t t o r n e y f e e s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 27-19-406, MCA. P l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t t h e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t allow f o r f e e s o v e r $ 1 0 0 , and i n a d d i t i o n t h a t no h e a r i n g was had t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f e e s . S e c t i o n 27-19-406, v e r y of c o s t s . MCA, d o e s s e t a $100 l i m i t o n t h e r e c o - However, t h i s C o u r t h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s are r e c o v e r a b l e u n d e r s e c t i o n 27-19-306, MCA, as e l e m e n t s o f t h e damages s u s t a i n e d by r e a s o n of t h e i n j u n c t i o n , a n d no s u c h m o n e t a r y l i m i t a p p e a r s i n t h a t s t a t u t e . Our p a s t d e c i s i o n s h a v e s a n c t i o n e d t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e f e e by u s i n g t h e "reasonable" standard. B u i l d e r s v. Smith ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 5 7 1 P.2d 3 8 9 , 393; G o d f r e y v . P i l o n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 448, 455, Mont. 4 3 9 , 448-449, Co-op Boz-Lew 529 P.2d 1372, 1377; S h e r i d a n County Electric v . F e r g u s o n ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 1 2 4 Mont. 5 4 3 , 5 5 1 , 227 P.2d D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t s e c t i o n 27-19-306 597, 602. p r o v i d e s f o r r e c o v e r y by a n a c t i o n on a n i n j u n c t i o n b o n d , w e a p p l y t h e same r e a s o n a b l e s t a n d a r d t o t h o s e a c t i o n s f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s i n which a bond i s not involved. I n making a t t o r n e y f e e s a n e l e m e n t of damages u n d e r s e c t i o n 27-19-306, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s u r e l y d i d n o t i n t e n d t o make t h e r e c o v e r y d e p e n d o n t h e j u d g e ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n demanding a n i n j u n c t i o n bond. T h u s we f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e s h o u l d h a v e a w a r d e d r e a s o n a b l e f e e s as a n e l e m e n t of d a m a g e s , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 27-19-306, I n t h i s case, MCA, and n o t as c o s t s of s u i t . t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s t o what c o n s t i t u t e d a r e a s o n a b l e f e e . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e c a n n o t make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h o u t h a v i n g s u c h e v i d e n c e b e f o r e him. 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. 422, 4 2 9 , 547 P.2d Georgetown R e c . 59. Corp. 1 3 2 8 , 1331-32; C r n c e v i c h v. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 1 1 3 , 1 2 0 , 5 4 1 P.2d 56, T h e r e f o r e w e v a c a t e t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s and remand t h i s case t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g as to r e a s o n a b l e f e e s . D e f e n d a n t s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e c o u r t a memorandum o f c o s t s of $1,073.87. P l a i n t i f f s t h e r e a f t e r moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o s t r i k e t h e memorandum o f c o s t s f o r f a i l u r e t o s e r v e i t upon t h e p l a i n t i f f s o r t h e i r a t t o r n e y w i t h i n f i v e d a y s a f t e r n o t i c e of t h e d e c i s i o n , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 25-10-501, t o t a x costs. MCA, o r in the alternative, The d i s t r i c t j u d g e d i d n o t r u l e o n t h e m o t i o n and a l l o w e d t h e costs as c l a i m e d b y d e f e n d a n t s to s t a n d . On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t s a d m i t t h a t s e v e r a l items of c o s t were i n c o r r e c t l y listed. Because of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r t h i s t i m e l y m o t i o n of p l a i n t i f f s , w e v a c a t e t h e award of c o s t s , and remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g o n t h e m o t i o n . W e remand t h i s case 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 p r o - ceedings consistent with t h i s opinion. Chief J u s t i c e

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.