Case Title: TINDALL v NEGAARD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12331 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1973 FRANCIS TINDALL , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, OLAF NEGAARD and PHYLLIS E. NEGAARD, h i s wife, Defendants and Appellants, and VERNE M C W I L L I A M S and L A R R Y M C W I L L I A M S , Defendants. Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Leonard H. McKinney argued, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent : Robert L. Johnson argued and William E. Berger, Lewistown, Montana. Submitted: March 1, 1973 Decided : MAR 1 4 Filed : 1 4 1975, M r . Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. 'This i s an appeal from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f entered on findings of f a c t and conclusions of law of the d i s t r i c t court of the tenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , County of Fergus, a f t e r t r i a l by the court without a jury. Judgment was f o r $2,800,25, the f u l l amount prayed f o r and attorney fees were assessed a s f o r a foreclosure of a l i e n . P l a i n t i f f Francis Tindall was i n the ready mix concrete business and furnished materials used upon defendant ~ e g a a r d s ' premises. Negaards a r e husband and wife and w i l l be referred t o herein a s Negaard. The other two named defendants a r e Verne McWilliams and Larry McWilliams. However, t h i s appeal a f f e c t s only the r i g h t s between Tindall and Negaard. Larry McWilliams was served but defaulted. Verne McWilliams was never found nor served. The d i s t r i c t court found a s f a c t s , so f a r a s pertinent here: a ) That p l a i n t i f f furnished materials t o the order of Vern McWilliams and delivered them t o the property of Negaard a t i n t e r - v a l s during the period May 20 t o July 9, 1968. b) That p l a i n t i f f furnished materials t o the order of Larry YcWilliams and delivered them t o the property of Negaard a t i n t e r v a l s during the period from September 1 1 t o September 26, 1968. c ) That Negaard had a written contract with Verne McWilliams co make c e r t a i n improvements. d) That Verne and Larry McWilliams a r e father and son, and t h a t they did work together; t h a t i n f a c t they worked together on the Negaard job from May 20 through July 9, 1968. e ) That a mechanic's l i e n was f i l e d on December 26, 1968. The d i s t r i c t court concluded a s a matter of law t h a t the Lien was v a l i d , and judgment should be entered. The issues raised by appellant Negaard are: 1. P l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o sustain the burden of proof neces- sary t o e s t a b l i s h a v a l i d l i e n capable of being foreclosed, 2. The conclusion of law t h a t p l a i n t i f f had a v a l i d l i e n was erroneous i n t h a t the court allowed tacking of two separate contracts t o create a v a l i d lien. 3. That a proper finding and conclusion would r e s u l t i n a dismissal of the l i e n s u i t . Negaard contracted, i n writing, with Verne t o build a foundation f o r a t r a i l e r house.Verne did the job, ordering and receiving the concrete from Tindall. Tindall b i l l e d Verne. Verne was paid i n two payments by Negaard, one i n cash on July 10 and the other by check on July 26,1968. O n the receipt dated July 26, 1968, signed by Verne, it i s noted '"d i n full". Verne did not make any payments t o Tindall f o r the concrete o r other materials. A t t h a t time, the accounts of Tindall showed due and owing from Verne the sum of $991.50 f o r materials delivered t o the Negaard job. O n September 11, 1968, Larry ordered and received concrete a t the Negaard property. Larry continued t o receive concrete u n t i l September 26. Larry w a s b i l l e d by Tindall, Larry did not pay f o r any of the concrete. Larry had made an o r a l contract with Negaard t o build a slab around a f i s h house. He a l s o poured and finished a sidewalk a t the t r a i l e r house where h i s f a t h e r Verne had done the work from May t o July. Negaard paid Larry i n two payments, $1500 on September 28, and $1400 on October 18,1968. W e have said heretofore t h a t Tindall b i l l e d Verne and Larry separately. They had separate addresses. On October 31, 1968, Tindall combined the two accounts i n the t o t a l amount of $2800.25 and b i l l e d Verne and Larry PicWilliams, Contractors. Also, a t about t h i s time, f o r the first time, Tindall c a l l e d Negaard informing him t h a t he had not been paid f o r the concrete. Regarding the o r a l contract found by the t r i a l court t o have existed between Negaard and Larry McWilliams, Negaard t e s t i f i e d t h a t he contacted several people, and Verne McWilliams got the bid t o build the slab around the f i s h house. Verne, however, then asked Negaard whether h i s son Larry could do the job. Negaard agreed and Larry did the job. Appellant, Negaard, attempts i n h i s b r i e f t o show t h a t the l a s t materials were delivered on September 24 under the proof. He then argues t h a t since the l i e n was not f i l e d u n t i l December 26, t h a t i t was not timely under section 45-502, R.C.M. 1947, because i t was not f i l e d within 90 days of furnishing the l a s t item i n such account, W e have examined the record carefully and find there i s s u b s t a n t i a l credible evidence t o uphold the t r i a l c o u r t ' s finding t h a t September 26 was the l a s t date of delivery. However, the problem remains whether there was one account or two accounts. The t r i a l court found two separate contracts a s shown above, but then went on t o find t h a t Verne and Larry were f a t h e r and son, often worked together, and did work together between May 20 and July 9. Based on t h i s alone, the t r i a l court "tacked" the two jobs together, Section 45-502, R.C.M. 1947, discusses perfection of l i e n s i n terms of accounts. Clearly here, the records of Tindall handled Verne and Larry i n two d i s t i n c t individual accounts, Not only were they kept separate by name, but the addresses on the ledger sheets were d i f f e r e n t . Thus we have, a s the t r i a l court found, two d i s t i n c t contracts; and a s the record c l e a r l y shows, two separate and d i s t i n c t accounts, The e a r l i e r account of ~ e r n e ' s was complete and the l a s t item furnished on July 11, so t h a t a l i e n f i l e d on December 26 was ndt timely and t o t h i s extent the judgment is in e r r o r . However, appellant argues t h a t i f part of the i t e m s f o r which the l i e n was f i l e d a r e invalid, the e n t i r e l i e n f a i l s and i s void. H e predicates t h i s theory on t h i s argument expressed i n h i s b r i e f : " ~ i n d a l l ' s testimony c l e a r l y reveals he made no e f f o r t t o a s c e r t a i n any differences. He never made inquiry of Negaard o r e i t h e r of the McWilliams concerning the relationships involved. H e always b i l l e d the contracts individually yet when it comes time t o a s s e r t a l i e n r i g h t , he a r b i t r a r i l y changes h i s treatment of these two contractors, b i l l s them j o i n t l y a s i f a partnership f o r the f i r s t time on October 31, 1968 and on t h i s b a s i s f i l e s h i s single l i e n on December 26, 1968. This indicates a delib- ateness of mind and purpose on the part of Tindall t o attempt t o v a l i d a t e the e n t i r e account through the f i l i n g of a single l i e n . 11 Appellant c i t e s Duval v. Fuchs, 141 Mont, 123, 127, 375 P.2d 541, where the Court said: "The r u l e i n Montana a s elsewhere i s well-settled t h a t a w i l l f u l and knowing exaggeration of the amount due w i l l void an otherwise v a l i d mechanic's 1 lien. O f course, i f fraud i s shown i n the f i l i n g , the l i e n is v i t i a t e d . f o r fraud c u t s down everv- thinpl' . Eskestrand c. Wunder, 94 Mont. 57, 2 0 ' ~ . 2d 622. In Duval, an exaggeration i n amount of some ten times appeared and fraud was s p e c i f i c a l l y found by the t r i a l court. In the i n s t a n t case, there was no fraud found. In f a c t , the t r i a l court found t h a t the relationship of father and son, being together on the job, having worked together on other jobs, and Negaard having ordered concrete once by telephone plus other f a c t s , put a s much duty on Negaard a s on Tindall. Negaard never bothered t o check materialmen, even though he admitted t o having previous experience with Liens. Also, no dispute a s t o the amount o f material delivered o r price appears here. W e conclude, a s the t r i a l court did i n e f f e c t , t h a t no w i l l f u l or knowing exaggeration e x i s t s here. Thus the r u l e t h a t where the l i e n includes nonlienable items the proof l i m i t s the recovery. See: Cole v. Hunt, 123 Mont. 256, 211 P,2d 417; Hammond v. Knievel, 141 Mont. 433, 378 P.2d 388; Caird Engineering Works v. Seven-Up Gold Mining Co., 1 1 1 Mont. 471, 1 1 1 P.2d 267. W e hold then t h a t the l i e n i s v a l i d a s t o the materials furnished t o Larry McWilliams. The judgment on the materials furnished Verne McWilliams is s e t aside. The matter i s returned t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r entry of judgment i n accordance herewith. One further issue i s involved, Attorney fees were awarded on the basis of the recovery amount. It i s obvious t h a t attorney fees will need reconsideration by the district court since the new judgment involves a lesser amount. For consideration of this matter, attention of the district court is called to Luebben v. Metlen, 110 Mont. 350, 100 P.2d 935; Thompson v. Cure, 133 Mont. 273, 322 P.2d 323; and Section 93-8614, R.C.M. 1947, Since the judgment is reversed in part and returned to the district court for modification, under Montana Rules Civil Appellate Procedure, Rule 33, each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. / Chief Justice