Case Title: HELLER v OSBURNSEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13250 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 LESTER J. HELLER, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, A R T H U R S. OSBURNSEN and LUCILLE F. OSBURNSEN, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable LeRoy I,. McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Johnson and Foster, Lewistown, Montana Robert Johnson argued, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: Dockery and Parrish, Lewistown, Montana Bradley B. Parrish argued, Lewistown, Montana Submitted: March 3, 1976 Decided : &"C! 12 lQJF PER CURIAM: This i s a motion t o dismiss a p p e l l a n t s ' appeal from t h e d e n i a l of a motion t o quash a w r i t of execution, issued by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Fergus County. This c a s e has been b e f o r e t h i s Court on two previous occasions: Heller v . Osburnsen, 162 Mont. 182, 510 P.2d 13 ( H e l l e r I ) ; and Heller v . Osburnsen, Mont . , 541 P.2d 1032, 32 St.Rep. 1066 ( H e l l e r 11). Because t h e f a c t s of t h e case w e r e set o u t i n t h e previous Heller d e c i s i o n s , it is n o t necessary t o again set o u t i n d e t a i l t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n . Since t h e last appeal M r s . Heller has d i e d , t h u s M r . Heller remains t h e s o l e p l a i n t i f f . This involved a c t i o n a r i s e s o u t of t h e sale of ranch p r o p e r t i e s by H e l l e r t o Osburnsens. The f i r s t appeal b e f o r e t h i s Court, decided May 7 , 1973, involved a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n brought by Heller t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s and d u t i e s a s t o t h e ranch s a l e t r a n s a c t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment w a s affirmed i n Heller I. I n t h e second appeal, decided October 30, 1975, t h i s Court affirmed t h e supplemental account- ing approved by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and found t h a t such account- ing d i d n o t v i o l a t e due process, ( H e l l e r 11). The accounting affirmed i n H e l l e r I1 found Osburnsens w e r e l i a b l e t o Heller i n t h e amount of $16,831.42, t o g e t h e r with i n t e r e s t on t h e sum of $14,586.03 a t t h e rate of 5 1/2% per annum from January 1, 1974, u n t i l paid. I n November 1975, Heller's a t t o r n e y s e n t a letter t o Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y demanding t h e payment of $23,608.42. This amount included t h e $16,831.42 awarded t o H e l l e r by t h e September 11, 1974 accounting, p l u s i n t e r e s t of $1,604.46 a s d i r e c t e d i n t h e accounting, p l u s underpayments on t h e ranch purchase c o n t r a c t f o r 1974-1975 t o t a l i n g $5,174.37. I n response t o t h i s letter t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s had a d i s c u s s i o n r e s u l t i n g i n Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y drawing up a s t i p u l a t i o n , which was signed by both a t t o r n e y s . The s t i p u l a t i o n provided, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e begin- ning d e f e r r e d balance of t h e purchase c o n t r a c t w a s $84,850 and requested t h e escrow agent t o compute each annual payment t o d a t e , with i n t e r e s t . The escrow agent w a s asked t o deduct from each payment t h e amount a c t u a l l y paid by Osburnsens. Osburnsens would then pay Heller t h e sum of a l l s h o r t a g e s , p l u s i n t e r e s t from t h e a c t u a l shortage d a t e . The escrow agent, F i r s t National Bank of Lewistown, s t a t e d it could n o t comply w i t h t h e s t i p u l a t i o n r e q u e s t s . Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y wrote t h e bank asking f o r t h e payments a c t u a l l y made by them, according t o t h e bank's r e c o r d s , and t h e payment schedule according t o t h e bank's records. Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y asked f o r t h e bank records f o r t h e payments a s a c t u a l l y a p p l i e d , n o t a s they should have been a p p l i e d pursuant t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment and accounting, both of which w e r e affirmed by t h i s Court. Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e bank r e c o r d s t o reach t h e conclusion t h a t they owed Heller $152.00, r a t h e r than t h e $23,608.42 demanded by H e l l e r . O n November 20, 1975, Osburn- s e n s ' a t t o r n e y o f f e r e d t h i s amount a s f u l l s e t t l e m e n t of t h e a c t i o n and debt. O n November 2 1 , 1975, Heller's a t t o r n e y d e c l a r e d t h e o f f e r of $152.00 an i n s u l t and i n d i c a t e d he considered t h e s t i p u - l a t i o n void and of no f o r c e o r e f f e c t ; claiming Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y w a s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e bank r e c o r d s as though he had won both appeals t o t h i s Court. A s i x t y day n o t i c e and demand pur- suant t o t h e d e f a u l t c l a u s e of t h e ranch purchase c o n t r a c t w a s included i n t h a t letter. O n December 29, 1975, t h e c l e r k of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t issued an execution d i r e c t e d t o t h e county s h e r i f f , asking t h e s h e r i f f t o levy on Osburnsens' property i n t h e amount of $23,610.25, p l u s c o s t s . Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y f i l e d a motion t o quash t h e execution on December 30, 1975. O n t h e same day he s e n t a letter t o t h e c l e r k of c o u r t and t h e s h e r i f f warning t h a t i f t h e w r i t w e r e found t o be wrongfully i s s u e d , Osburnsens would hold each re- s p o n s i b l e f o r any r e s u l t i n g damages. O n December 31, 1975, Heller's a t t o r n e y f i l e d an answer t o t h e motion t o quash. O n January 12, 1976, t h e s h e r i f f executed on Osburnsens' bank account i n t h e amount of $23,610.25. O n January 16, 1976, a f t e r a hearing on t h e motion t o quash, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied t h e motion t o quash on t h e grounds t h e s t i p u l a t i o n was ambiguous and t h e bank o f f i c e r a p p a r e n t l y r e f u s e d t o t r y t o c a r r y it o u t . Osburnsens appealed t h i s o r d e r on January 1 9 , 1976. Appellants f i l e d a motion t o s t a y execution on January 21, 1976, A hearing was held on t h i s motion r e s u l t i n g i n a s t a y o r d e r and providing t h e money i n t h e s h e r i f f ' s hands be deemed a s u f f i c i e n t undertaking f o r supersedeas and c o s t s on appeal. Respondent r a i s e d two i s s u e s on h i s motion t o d i s m i s s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s Court. I. A r e t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n a p p e l l a n t s ' appeal res j u d i c a t a ? 2. Was a p p e l l a n t s ' appeal taken without s u b s t a n t i a l o r reasonable grounds, b u t f o r purposes of d e l a y o n l y , whereby dam- ages should be a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t s pursuant t o Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P.? This Court determined, i n t h e two p r i o r d e c i s i o n s i n t h i s m a t t e r , t h a t a p p e l l a n t s owe respondent $16,831.42, p l u s i n t e r e s t . Approximately $5,000.00 is due respondent a s under- payments on t h e ranch purchase c o n t r a c t subsequent t o t h e September 11, 1974 accounting, affirmed by t h i s Court i n Heller 11. N o s t i p u l a t i o n o r agreement signed by t h e r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s can change t h i s determination, it e x i s t s u n t i l modified, amended, o r overruled by t h i s Court. The award t o respondent i s res judicata. The general r u l e s f o r res judicata a r e set o u t i n 46 Am J u r 2d, Judgments, "A f i n a l judgment on t h e m e r i t s , rendered by a c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n , is conclusive as t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r p r i v i e s , and a s t o them c o n s t i t u t e s an a b s o l u t e bar t o a subsequent a c t i o n involving t h e same claim, demand, and cause of a c t i o n * * *. The judgment p u t s an end t o t h e cause of a c t i o n which cause cannot aqain be brouqht i n t o l i t i q a t i o n between t h e p a r t i e s upon any ground o r f o r any purpose whatever, -- i n t h e absence of some f a c t o r i n v a l i - d a t i n g t h e judgment." (Emphasis added.) The crux of a p p e l l a n t s ' argument on appeal, i s t h a t t h e w r i t of execution was improperly issued as t h e amount due re- spondent from a p p e l l a n t s was s e t t l e d pursuant t o t h e s t i p u l a - t i o n . While paying l i p s e r v i c e t o t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , and t h e a c t i o n s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h i s Court, a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y contends t h i s matter has been s e t t l e d f o r $152.00, thereby wholly ignoring t h i s Court's affirmance of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment and account- ing. A s t i p u l a t i o n cannot i n t e r f e r e with t h e d u t i e s , functions, o r d e c i s i o n s of t h i s Court, o r any o t h e r c o u r t . 7 3 Am J u r 2d, S t i p u l a t i o n s , §4 and S11. Regardless of t h e language of t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , and a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e o f , a p p e l l a n t s owe respondent t h e amounts determined i n t h e September 11, 1974 accounting, affirmed by t h i s Court, Heller 11. Any s t i p u l a t i o n which i s i n t e r p r e t e d a s s e t t l i n g a v a l i d judgment i n excess of $16,000 f o r t h e sum of $152 is void as being absurd. The s t i p u l a t i o n is obviously ambiguous o r such an absurdity could not r e s u l t thereby. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t properly found it so. Appellants a l s o r a i s e a question of v i o l a t i o n of due process i n t h e i r appeal. W e f i n d no v i o l a t i o n of due process a s s t a t u t o r y requirements were followed, and no p r e j u d i c e re- s u l t e d t o a p p e l l a n t s , due t o t h e hearing which was afforded them. W e need n o t go i n t o t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e w r i t of exe- c u t i o n except t o say a w r i t of execution is a proper means of enforcing a money judgment. Section 93-5805, R.C.M. 1947; Nepstad v. East Chicago O i l Assn., Inc., 96 Mont. 183, 29 P.2d Appellants question t h e $5,000.00 excess i n t h e execution. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d not speak t o t h i s i s s u e i n its d e n i a l of t h e motion t o quash. A n excessive judgment is not per s e void, it is merely voidable u n l e s s fraudulent i n t e n t i s proven. The proper p r a c t i c e t o remedy t h i s matter i s a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e excess, not move t o quash t h e w r i t . 33 C.J.S. Executions Appellants' a t t o r n e y i s attempting t o use a n appeal of t h e d e n i a l of a motion t o quash a w r i t of execution as a v e h i c l e t o once again r a i s e a question a s t o t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h i s C o u r t ' s determinations i n Heller I and Heller 11. I n Libin v. Huffine, 124 Mont. 361, 363, 224 P.2d 1 4 4 , t h i s Court s t a t e d : "Where a s here an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t has unqualifiedly affirmed a judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , it would obviously and unnecessarily p r o t r a c t l i t i g a t i o n t o allow f u r t h e r o r successive appeals from t h e judgment so affirmed. Such successive appeals i n f a c t would be appeals attempted t o be taken from t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i t s e l f . " See a l s o , Gray v. Bohart, 131 Mont. 522, 312 P.2d 529. I n t h e i n s t a n t appeal, a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y i s i n d i r e c t l y appealing t h e two e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s i n an apparent attempt t o delay payment of t h e awarded sums t o respondent. Such an appeal is f r i v o l o u s and without m e r i t . This i s a proper case t o g r a n t a motion t o dismiss t h e appeal a s f r i v o l o u s and without m e r i t . Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P., s t a t e s : "Damages f o r appeal without m e r i t . I f t h e supreme c o u r t is s a t i s f i e d from t h e record and t h e presen- t a t i o n of t h e appeal, t h a t t h e same w a s taken without s u b s t a n t i a l o r reasonable grounds, but apparently f o r purposes of delay only, such dam- ages may be assessed on determination thereof as under t h e circumstances are deemed proper." I n Weinheimer v. S c o t t , 143 Mont. 243, 388 P.2d 790, a c a s e involving a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y i n t h e i n s t a n t case, w e quoted Libin v. Huffine, supra, with approval and imposed damages of $500 i n favor of respondent. These damages w e r e imposed on a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y f o r a f r i v o l o u s appeal. These damages w e r e t h e c o s t of t r a v e l , research, and preparation t o answer t h e f r i v o l o u s appeal. In Farmers S t a t e Bank of Conrad v. Iverson and Bouma, 1 6 2 Mont. 130, 133, 509 P.2d 839, t h i s Court assessed damages of $1,000 as a " r e s t r a i n t on t h e a c t i v i t i e s of p e t i t i o n e r s and a p p e l l a n t s . " The motion of respondent t o dismiss a p p e l l a n t s t appeal is hereby granted. Damages under Rule 32 a r e assessed i n t h e amount of $1,000. Honorable W. W. Lessley, d i s t r i c t judge, s a t i n place of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison.