Case Title: REIDY v ANACONDA-DEER LODGE COUNTY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-305 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 MICHAEL T. REIDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, ANACONDA-DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Deer Lodge Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Haxby and Sweeney, Butte, Montana Bradley L. Belke argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Poore, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, Butte, Montana Douglas A . Buxbaum argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: December 4, 1981 Decided: ylt B " Clerk M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . I n an a c t i o n f o r breach of c o n t r a c t by a d e v e l o p e r of a p r o j e c t e d shopping mall complex a g a i n s t t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d c i t y - c o u n t y government of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County, t h e District Court g r a n t e d p a r t i a l summary judgment a g a i n s t t h e d e v e l o p e r s t r i k i n g h i s claim f o r loss of a p e r c e n t a g e of income and ownership of t h e proposed complex. The d e v e l o p e r a p p e a l s . W e v a c a t e t h e summary j udgment and remand f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. I n June, 1978, p l a i n t i f f Michael Reidy and d e f e n d a n t Anaconda-Deer Lodge County e n t e r e d i n t o an agreement f o r t h e deve- lopment of a shopping m a l l complex i n a s i x - b l o c k area of down- town Anaconda, Montana. I n November 1979, Reidy f i l e d an a c t i o n f o r breach of c o n t r a c t a g a i n s t Anaconda-Deer Lodge County a l l e g i n g t h a t it f a i l e d to purchase t h e land f o r t h e development and t r a n s f e r it t o Reidy f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n as r e q u i r e d by t h e c o n t r a c t , and f u r t h e r t e r m i n a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t u n i l a t e r a l l y w i t h o u t j u s t cause . H e s o u g h t damages of $519,791.28 c o n s i s t i n g of (1) c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n a t t e m p t i n g to perform t h e c o n t r a c t ($19,791.28); ( 2 ) loss of b u i l d e r ' s profit ( $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 ) ; and ( 3 ) loss of h i s p e r c e n t a g e of income and ownership of t h e complex ($410,000). Anaconda-Deer Lodge County moved f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment on t h e l a s t i t e m of claimed damages contending t h a t damages cannot be awarded f o r l o s t prof i t s of an u n e s t a b l i s h e d b u s i n e s s . The District Court g r a n t e d partial summary judgment h o l d i n g t h a t no r e c o v e r y could be awarded f o r R e i d y l s a l l e g e d loss o f a p e r c e n t a g e of income and ownership of t h e completed complex. On June 1 0 , 1981, Reidy appealed from t h e p a r t i a l summary judgment. T h e r e a f t e r on August 18 Reidy moved f o r cer- t i £ i c a t i o n under Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ. P., t h a t t h e p a r t i a l summary judgment was f i n a l i n n a t u r e so a s to r e n d e r it a p p e a l a b l e . On August 1 9 , t h e District Court g r a n t e d Rule 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The District Court i n its o r d e r of c e r t i f i c a t i o n and i n its meinorandum o p i n i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t it had c o n s i d e r e d t h e fac- t o r s enumerated i n Roy v. Neibauer ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . -- r 610 P.2d 1185, 37 St.Rep. 897. I t i n d i c a t e d t h a t Reidy was e n t i t l e d t o a f a v o r a b l e e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether cer- t i f i c a t i o n should be g r a n t e d because t h i s case was of such an i n £ r e q u e n t and h a r s h n a t u r e t h a t c e r t i f i c a t i o n should be g r a n t e d . The D i s t r i c t Court i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t items of claimed damages d i d n o t o v e r l a p ; t h a t t h e r e w a s no p o s s i b i l i t y of a set o f f ; t h a t t h e reviewing c o u r t would n o t be o b l i g e d to con- s i d e r t h i s i s s u e a second t i m e ; t h a t it intended its r u l i n g to be f i n a l ; and t h a t t h e d e l a y , d e t r i m e n t a l economic consequences and unwarranted a d d i t i o n a l expense would be u n j u s t to Reidy. The i s s u e p o s i t e d by Reidy i n t h i s appeal is whether dama- g e s are a l l o w a b l e i n a breach of c o n t r a c t a c t i o n f o r lost prof i t s o f an u n e s t a b l i s h e d b u s i n e s s . W e do n o t reach t h i s i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l . W e w i l l n o t p e r m i t c a s e s to be fragmented i n t h i s manner t o allow s u c c e s s i v e a p p e a l s i n a s i n g l e c a s e where r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s are a v a i l a b l e . Such a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s an u n j u s t i f i a b l e waste of s c a r c e j u d i c i a l t i m e and r e s o u r c e s . W e r e p e a t what we s a i d i n Roy v. Neibauer, s u p r a . I f a t r i a l c o u r t abuses its d i s c r e t i o n i n c e r t i f y i n g an o r d e r of sum- mary judgment as f i n a l under Rule 5 4 ( b ) , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t is w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n t h e a p p e a l . Allis-Chalmers Corp. v . P h i l a d e l p h i a Electric Co. ( 3 r d C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 5 2 1 F.2d 360. An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l normally c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s when c o n s i d e r i n g a Rule 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n : (1) The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a d j u d i c a t e d and unad- j ud i c a t e d claims ; ( 2) The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e need f o r review might or might n o t be mooted by f u t u r e developments i n t h e District Court; ( 3 ) The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the reviewing c o u r t might be o b l i g e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e same i s s u e a second t i m e ; ( 4 ) The presence o r absence of a c l a i m or c o u n t e r c l a i m which could r e s u l t i n a s e t o f f a g a i n s t t h e judgment sought t o be made f i n a l ; ( 5 ) Miscellaneous f a c t o r s such a s d e l a y , economic and s o l v e n c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , s h o r t e n i n g t h e t i m e of t r i a l , t r i v i a l i t y o f competing c l a i m s , expense and t h e l i k e . Roy v. Neibauer, s u p r a ; S i n g e r Housing Co. v. Seven Lakes Venture (D.Colo. 1979) , 466 F.Supp. 3 6 9 . Here we a r e asked to h e a r , d e t e r m i n e and i s s u e an o p i n i o n on whether one of t h r e e items of damage is p e r m i s s i b l e b e f o r e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of l i a b i l i t y f o r any damages has o c c u r r e d . While - it is t r u e t h a t such d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n advance of t r i a l would f i n a l l y settle t h e l e g a l i t y of t h a t i t e m and might reduce t r i a l t i m e , it is e q u a l l y t r u e t h a t delaying t h e t r i a l pending d e t e r - m i n a t i o n of t h a t i s s u e on appeal r e s u l t s i n u n d e s i r a b l e consequences, v i z . , unwarranted d e l a y , a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s involving f i l i n g f e e s , p r e p a r a t i o n of b r i e f s , t r a v e l l i n g to t h e S t a t e C a p i t o l f o r o r a l argument and a d d i t i o n a l a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s on a p p e a l . C o n s i d e r a t i o n and balancing of t h e s e com- p e t i n g f a c t o r s is r e q u i r e d under o u r o p i n i o n i n Roy v. Neibauer, s u p r a . The i s s u e i n t h i s appeal might w e l l be mooted by f u t u r e developments i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court, a n o t h e r f a c t o r t o be con- s i d e r e d under - Roy. A f i n d i n g of no l i a b i l i t y under t h e c o n t r a c t by judge or j u r y would c e r t a i n l y moot any i s s u e of damages. Reasonable a1 t e r n a t i v e s t o a fragmented appeal a r e a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s c a s e . The t r i a l could be b i f u r c a t e d with t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y f i r s t determined b e f o r e a d d r e s s i n g any i s s u e of damages. Rule 4 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.; Monaco v. Cecconi ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . , 589 P.2d 156; 36 St.Rep. 113. I f the i s s u e of damages were reached i n e i t h e r a b i f u r c a t e d o r nonbif u r c a t e d t r i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t judge could admit a l l evidence of damages p r o v i s i o n a l l y s u b j e c t t o a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n following judgment. U s e of e i t h e r or both a l t e r n a t i v e s might moot t h e i s s u e now on a p p e a l . I n any e v e n t it would e l i m i n a t e f r a g m e n t a t i o n of a s i n g l e c a s e i n t o t w o o r more a p p e a l s and permit t h i s Court to d e t e r m i n e a l l i s s u e s i n one a p p e a l . W e v a c a t e t h e p a r t i a l summary j udgment w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o p e r m i t t h e District Court to c o n s i d e r t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s . For t h e foregoing r e a s o n s , we hold t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n under Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., and remand to t h e District Court f o r f u r t h e r proceed i n g s . Chief J U S ~ ~ C ~ W e concur: J u s t i c e s [ /