Case Title: MARTIN v LAUREL CABLE TV INC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-400

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-400 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 JAMES W. MARTIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, LAUREL CABLE TV, INC., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Christopher P. Thimsen, Billings, Montana For Respondent : James P. P;lurphy, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Dec. 20, 1984 Decided: March 13, 1985 Clerk Mr. Chief Justice J. A. Turnage del-ivered the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial. District, Yellowstone County, following bench trial. The court dismissed Count I which claimed rent due on a one-year holdover lease, provided that defendant honor or replace two rent checks for a two-month period previously delivered to but not negotiated. by plain- t.iff. The court granted judgment for the plaintiff on Count I1 for $280 for heating costs owed during a five-year lease and the holdover period. we affirm. Plaintiff appeals only the judgment on Count 11, asking for a greater sum due as an equitable pro rata share of total heat costs. Plaintiff claims error in permitting par01 evidence as basis for the judgment. Issues: I. Did the trial court violate the parol evidence rule in a-dmitting a November 9, 1971, letter from plaintiff's uncle to defendant's predecessor into evidence and oral testimony regarding the effect of the letter? 2. Was the letter "material" to the case? 3. Without the letter, is there substantial credible evidence to support the judgment? In holding that the admission of the letter and testi- mony did not violate the parol evidence rule, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Because there was no error, the remaining issues become moot. Martin had inherited from his uncle, Paul Wold, a part interest in commercial property in Laurel, Montana, and bousht out remaining interests in 1972. In the summer of 1977, Hilliard, operator of Laurel Cable TV, Inc., assumed the obligations on a lease agreement between his predecessor and Martin's uncle for office and ground space for the cable television operation. Hill-iard and Martin negotiated for and entered into a lease agreement on July 21, 1977, to become effective on October 1 , 1977, which would run for five years to September 30, 1982. Martin's attorney prepared the lease and included the same boilerplate "fa.ir and equitable pro rata share of the total heat costs" language contained in the prior lease agreement. The lease agreement for $100 a month under the old lease ran to October 1, 1977, at which time the lease agreement required $200 a month for the office. A separate iease agreement to rent ground space for $50 monthly is not part of this contest. At issue in this appeal is Paragraph VI of the lease agreement: "The Lessee covenants and agrees it will pay all its utility expenses, including but not limited. to heat, electric power and telephone; it being understood that water shall be furnished by the Lessor; however, heat on the building being furnished from a central boiler, the Lessee shall pay to the Lessor a fair and equitable pro rata share of the total heat cost." At the trial Hilliard testified that he had pa-id the heating bills according to the schedule of a letter from Martin's uncle, dated November 9, 1971, to the prior cable television company. Over a.n objection based on the par01 evidence rule, Hill.iard was permitted to testify that he and Martin had a.greed to pay according to schedule. For whatever reason, Hilliard did not pay for the period of September 1977 through September 1979 and admits owing for those years. he record is clear that he made payments on a set schedule from October 1979 through February 1982. Martin wrote a letter dated February 28, 1982, noting the history of the payments and demanding increased payment for ret-rospective and pro- spective heat costs. Hilliard denies owing the add-itional amounts set out according to Martin's formula. Appellant contends that the District Court erred in considering the letter and testimony which allegedly varied the terms of the written lease agreement as it related to the paragraph requiring payment of "a fair and equitable pro rata share of the total heat cost." Appellant further contends that the letter was "immaterial" to the case i l . , irrele- vant), and that without the letter, there is no substantial credible evidence to support the judgment of the trial court. Instead, appellant would have the court fol1.0~ his formula to determine the equitable pro rata share for the entire five-year period. RELEVANCY. Evidence is relevant if it has "any tenden- cy to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of t . h e action more probable or less probable than it wou1.d have been without the evidence." Rule 401, Mont.R.Evid. Evidence is generally admissible if it is relevant. Rule 402, Mont.R.Evid. Here, the letter and testimony had the tendency to make the reason for the payment schedule more or less probable. Credibility of the witness is a matter for the fact finder, but the relevant evidence is generally admissible, with some exceptions such as the par01 evidence rule. Appellant al- ludes to the remoteness in time from the November 9, 1971 , letter to the October 1, 1977, ] . . e a s e agreement. The nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the particular case must control. Determination of remcteness is left to the court's discretion, subject to review only if there is mani- fest abuse. Preston v. McDonnell (Mont. 1983), 659 P.2d 276, 40 St.Rep. 297. SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Without the letter, there is evidence that plartin accepted payment on a schedule from October 1979 to February 1982 for set amounts during specific cooler months according to appellant's own letter to Eilliard of February 28, 1982. Appellant's bookkeeping records corroborate the amounts paid. With testimony as to the payment and acceptance, there is substantial cred-ible evidence of a two and a half year course of conduct to sup- port the judgment. There is also substantial credible evi- dence that appellant never, from the commencement of the lease agreement on October 1, 1977, until February 28, 1382, submitted to respondent any bill, statement or demand. for increased payments for heat from which respondent could determine appel-lant ' s specific dema-nds. PAROL EVIDENCE. The parol evidence rule is codified in Montana under 5 28-2-905, MCA. In essence, when the terms of parties' agreement are reduced to writing, the writing is considered to contain all the terms, thus representing the entire transaction. No evidence can be admitted of the terms other than the writing itself. The rule, however, j s a rule of exceptions: (1) when pleadings put in issue an alleged mistake; (2) when parties dispute the validity of th.e agree- ment itself; (3) when circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it relates or other evidence explain an extrinsic ambiguity; or (4) when circumstances establish ill-egality or fraud, then the trial court may deem parol evidence admissible. Section 28-2-905, MCA . The role of the judge is to construe an instrument according t . o its terms or its substance, not to insert or omit terms. Section 1-4-101, MCA. The judge, however, may consider circumstances surrounding the execution, including the situation of the subject of the instrument and of the parties, to place himself in a position to interpret the language. Sections 1-4-102 and 28-2-905 ( 2 ) , MCA. In con- struing terms, evidence is admissible to show a local, tech- nical, or otherwise peculiar signification used a.nd understood by the parties. Section 1-4-10?, MCA. The lower court properly considered the evidence of circumstances under which the agreement was made to determine what the parties meant by the language "fair and equitable pro rata share of the total heat cost." The terms are sub- ject to interpretation and may be proved by parol testimony. Brown v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1982), 197 Mont. 1, 9, 640 P.2d 453, 457. Anbiguity arises when a contract's wording or phraseol- ogy is subject to two interpretations. The parol testimony can be used to determine what the parties meant by use of particular terms or phrases. Souders v. Montana Power (~ont. 1983), 662 P.2d 289, 290, 40 St.Rep. 583, 585. The court properly accepted parol testimony to explain circumstances surrounding the lease agreement, thus resol-ving the ambiguity existing in the instrument as permitted by S 28-2-905(2), MCA . Dussault v. Hjelm (Mont. 1981), 627 ~ . 2 d 1237, We concur: