Case Title: FIRST BANK-SOUTHSIDE MISSOULA v SA

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-276

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-08-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-276 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 FIRST BANK-SOUTHSIDE MISSOULA, Plaintiff and Respondent, JAMES H . SADLER, DARLA C. SADLER and BILLIE WILLIAMS, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, Montana James Sadler, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Anthony F. Keast, Missoula, Montana Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 29, 1982 Decided: August 11,1982 Filed: AUG 11 1 9 8 2 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an a c t i o n commenced by t h e p l a i n t i f f bank an i n t e r p l e a d e r , t o compel t h e d e f e n d a n t s to s e t t l e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t to c e r t a i n real e s t a t e i n which t h e a p p e l l a n t was a s e l l e r and t h e respondent was a buyer. The c a s e was t r i e d w i t h o u t a j u r y and judgment was e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e respondent buyer. From t h i s j udgmen t t h e a p p e l l a n t sel l e r appe a 1 s . The sole i s s u e p r e s e n t e d is whether t h e t r i a l judge abused h i s j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n by denying t h e a p p e l l a n t , B i l l i e Williams, any remedy i n t h i s cause of a c t i o n . The c o n t r a c t h e r e o r i g i n a t e d when t h e a p p e l l a n t , B i l l i e Williams, and h e r former husband, Richard Williams, s o l d t h e p r o p e r t y involved s u b j e c t to a c o n t r a c t to a f i r m known a s Northwest Limited. The p u r c h a s e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n Northwest Limited was t r a n s f e r r e d to James and Darla S a d l e r t h e r e a f t e r . The a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s t h a t af ter t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e p r o p e r t y to t h e S a d l e r s , payments were f r e q u e n t l y l a t e and a t t i m e s t h e S a d l e r s had more t h a n one payment d e l i n q u e n t . A n o t i c e of d e f a u l t was mailed to t h e S a d l e r s and r e c e i v e d by them; and t h e y i n t u r n paid to t h e escrow a g e n t t h e amount due on a F r i d a y a f t e r n o o n a f t e r t h r e e o ' c l o c k p.m. on t h e 3 0 t h day of t h e d e f a u l t . T h e r e a f t e r on t h e 33rd day of d e f a u l t , a Monday, B i l l i e Williams demanded t h a t t h e escrow a g e n t close t h e escrow, a s payment had been made a f t e r 3:00 p.m. on t h e 3 0 t h day. A s a r e s u l t , t h e escrow a g e n t f i l e d t h i s i n t e r p l e a d e r a c t i o n . The a p p e l l a n t , B i l l i e Williams, is a r e a l e s t a t e l o a n o f f i c e r w i t h t h e F i r s t Bank-Western, Missoula, Montana, which is a f f i - l i a t e d w i t h t h e escrow a g e n t , t h e F i r s t Bank-Southside a t Missoula, Montana. G e r a l d i n e C. McLaughlin is t h e mother-in-law of James H. S a d l e r , and is t h e owner/operator of Montana Leasing, a commercial p r o p e r t y management f i r m t h a t manages t h e r e a l e s t a t e s u b j e c t t o t h e Williams/Sadler c o n t r a c t . A l l payments on t h e c o n t r a c t were made by t h e l e a s i n g company from r e n t s r e c e i v e d from t h e p r o p e r t y . A t t h e time of t h e d e f a u l t , t h e r e w a s a nega- t i v e cash flow of $320 a month, p a r t i a l l y caused by t h e i n c r e a s e i n t a x e s from $1,200 to $3,200 a y e a r on t h e p r o p e r t y . The S a d l e r c o n t r a c t i n c l u d e s a mortgage a t t h e Western F e d e r a l Savings and Loan and t h e a p p e l l a n t W i l l i a m s r e c e i v e s an i n t e r e s t o v e r r i d e due to t h e f a c t t h a t t h e S a d l e r c o n t r a c t is a t a g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t r a t e t h a n t h e Williams' Western Federal Savings and Loan mortgage. The payment i n q u e s t i o n amounts to $1,046.80 i n p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t and $355.50 p e r month f o r a t a x and i n s u r a n c e budget. A f t e r payment to t h e F i r s t Bank-Southside , t h e bank d i s t r i b u t e s t h e whole payment to B i l l i e Williams a s p e r h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s . Mrs. Williams claims by not r e c e i v i n g payment on t h e f i r s t o f e v e r y month, t h e r e is a burden placed on h e r a s she is charged a $15 l a t e p e n a l t y payment on t h e o u t s t a n d i n g mortgage a t t h e Western Federal Savings and Loan. I n r e p l y , t h e S a d l e r s complained t h a t t h e t e n a n t s pay t h e i r r e n t s l a t e ; t h u s causing them to make t h e i r payments late on o c c a s i o n . There is testimony t h a t t h e S a d l e r s had requested t h a t they be allowed to d i v i d e t h e payment, to a l l o w t h e S a d l e r s to pay t h e payment to Western F e d e r a l Savings and Loan d i r e c t l y , t h u s saving any l a t e p e n a l t y payments t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . The a p p e l l a n t refused t o go along w i t h t h i s plan of making payment. Much is made i n t h e b r i e f i n g of t h e case and i n t h e testimony a t t h e t i m e t h e cause was heard, of t h e f a c t t h a t M r . S a d l e r is an a t t o r n e y . However, t h e r e is nothing i n t h e record to substan- t i a t e any a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t M r . S a d l e r uses h i s p o s i t i o n a s an a t t o r n e y to h i s own advantage. There was no c l i e n t / a t t o r n e y r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between t h e p a r t i e s and t h e record f a i l s to r e v e a l any impropriety on t h e p a r t of M r . S a d l e r i n handling h i s d e b t o b l i g a t i o n s to M r s . Williams. The testimony c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e economic f a c t o r s of t h e r e n t a l p r o p e r t y i n t h e b u i l d i n g involved is such t h a t t h e S a d l e r s have to g e t t h e r e n t s to pay o f f Mrs. Williams and, t h e economy being what it is, t h e r e a r e p e r i o d s when it is n o t p o s s i b l e to pay t h e o b l i g a t i o n s on t h e s c h e d u l e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t W i l l i a m s d e s i r e s . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t s i n c e t h e payment was made on t h e 3 0 t h day, t h e r e was no d e f a u l t . The p o s i t i o n of t h e a p p e l l a n t is; because S a d l e r knows of t h e 3:00 p.m. c u t o f f t i m e a t t h e bank on F r i d a y af t e r n o o n and made payments af ter t h e 3:00 p.m. c u t o f f time; t h a t she should have some r e l i e f from t h e c o u r t , e i t h e r (1) t h e c o u r t should have d e c l a r e d t h e c o n t r a c t as clear, unambiguous, and t h a t S a d l e r s f o r f e i t e d t h e i r r i g h t s i n t h e c o n t r a c t by f a i l u r e t o remedy t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h i n t h e 30-days allowed t h e r e i n ; or ( 2 ) t h a t t h e c o u r t should have reformed t h e c o n t r a c t to p r o v i d e f o r a late-payment p e n a l t y to correct t h e d e f i c i e n c y of t h e c o n t r a c t and to e n f o r c e compliance by t h e d e f e n d a n t , S a d l e r ; or ( 3 ) deny a r e c o v e r y under e i t h e r (1) or ( 2 ) above and invoke t h e c o u r t ' s i n h e r e n t e q u i t a b l e power to o r d e r t h e o f f i c e r of t h e c o u r t to perform l e g a l and c o n t r a c t u a l d u t i e s i n a matter c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e e t h i c a l r e q u i r e - ments of t h e p r o f e s s i o n . T h i s Court h a s s t a t e d on numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t it w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e judgment of t h e District Court u n l e s s e v i d e n c e pre- p o n d e r a t e s a g a i n s t it. Our s t a n d a r d of review i n non-jury c a s e s is simply t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e District Court, see Hayden v. Snowden ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 169, 172, 576 P.2d 1115, 1117. Here t h e e v i d e n c e was c l e a r and u n c o n t r o v e r t e d . The payment r e q u i r e d by t h e n o t i c e of d e f a u l t was paid on t h e 3 0 t h day of t h e d e f a u l t p e r i o d and t h e r e was n o t h i n g i n t h e c o n t r a c t concerning a payment a f t e r 3:00 p.m. as being l a t e . A t t h e t i m e of t h e payment on t h e 30th day t h e breach of c o n t r a c t was cured and under t h e terms of the c o n t r a c t i n t h e paragraph set o u t f o r d e f a u l t , it c l e a r l y states t h a t i f t h e d e f a u l t h a s been cured w i t h i n t h i r t y days: "No d e f a u l t , t e r m i n a t i o n , c a n c e l l a t i o n , or a c c e l e r a t i o n s h a l l be worked." The District Court was correct when it found no d e f a u l t and it was c o r r e c t i n r e j e c t i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r late p e n a l t y payments, f o r i f such had been g r a n t e d , t h e c o u r t would be rewriting a contract which it is not permitted to do. Judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and on this record each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. We concur: