Case Title: WESTERN PLUMBING METCALF v GARRI

Citation: 

Docket Number: 13213

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13213 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 19 7 6 W E S T E R N P T M I N G O F BOZEMAN, and JOHN METCALF, d / b / a J & . T MASOh%Y, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, RUPERT T. GARRISON and JOAN N. GARRISON, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank B l a i r , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Chester L. Jones argued, Virginia City, Montana For Respondents: William E. G i l b e r t , argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: September 2, 1976 Decided : 1 7 1% Filed : $$EP L? 1 g E M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. I n a n a c t i o n t o f o r e c l o s e l i e n s f o r l a b o r and materials, t h e homeowners paid t h e amounts claimed with i n t e r e s t a f t e r t h e s u i t was f i l e d b u t p r i o r t o t r i a l . The l i e n h o l d e r s proceeded t o t r i a l t h e r e a f t e r and secured judgment f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s . The homeowners appeal. The homeowners, Rupert T. Garrison and Joan N. Garrison, w e r e having a home c o n s t r u c t e d f o r them i n Madison County i n 1974. I n t h e summer and f a l l of t h a t year they e n t e r e d i n t o a n agree- ment w i t h Western Plumbing of Bozeman, I n c . , one of t h e l i e n - h o l d e r s , whereby Western w a s t o i n s t a l l a furnace, plumbing sys- t e m and f i x t u r e s f o r t h r e e b a t h s and a k i t c h e n i n t h i s residence. The agreement was f o r t h e reasonable v a l u e of l a b o r and materials furnished w i t h no s p e c i f i c agreement a s t o t h e t i m e of payment. O n February 19, 1975, before t h e e n t i r e job w a s completed, Western f i l e d a l i e n f o r t h e l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s f u r n i s h e d up t o t h a t t i m e i n t h e amount of $7,500. The e n t i r e agreement had n o t been com- p l e t e d a t t h i s t i m e because of n o n a r r i v a l of c e r t a i n bathroom f i x t u r e s . The complete job as agreed t o t a l e d approximately $8,800. I n 1974 t h e Garrisons a l s o e n t e r e d i n t o an agreement w i t h John Metcalf, d/b/a J & J Masonry, whereby t h e l a t t e r agreed t o do c e r t a i n masonry work on t h e r e s i d e n c e i n c l u d i n g two f i r e p l a c e s , f o u r p i l l a r s , a b r i c k and s t o n e w a l l , b r i c k flower bed and b r i c k barbeque. The Garrisons paid $3,000 f o r materials f o r t h i s work. Metcalf commenced work i n September 1974 and q u i t about December 6 , 1974 because of inclement weather. Metcalf never r e t u r n e d t o complete t h e work and o u t of 14,560 b r i c k s agreed t o be l a i d t o complete t h e job, he l a i d o n l y 11,500 b r i c k s . The p i l l a r s , t h e b r i c k flower bed, and t h e b r i c k barbeque remained unfinished. On February 19, 1975, Metcalf f i l e d a l i e n f o r l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s furnished i n t h e t o t a l amount of $6,659.08. Actions t o f o r e c l o s e the l i e n s of Western and Metcalf w e r e f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Madison County on March 11, 1975. O n April 26, 1975, Garrisons paid and discharged a l l amounts owing t o Western and Metcalf f o r labor and m a t e r i a l s , including i n t e r e s t . Western and Metcalf continued t h e i r fore- c l o s u r e a c t i o n s t o t h e e x t e n t of seeking judgment f o r t h e i r a t t o r n e y f e e s . T r i a l of t h e consolidated claims f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s was commenced on June 27, 1975, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Madison County before t h e c o u r t without a jury. Thereafter f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law, and judgment was entered awarding Western $700 a t t o r n e y f e e s , and Metcalf $600 a t t o r n e y f e e s . The Garrisons appeal from t h e s e awards. Two u l t i m a t e i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review: (1) The v a l i d i t y of t h e l i e n s ; ( 2 ) A r e t h e l i e n h o l d e r s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s where payment i s made p r i o r t o judgment of foreclosure? The l i e n h o l d e r s contend t h e i r l i e n s a r e v a l i d because t h e work was s u b s t a n t i a l l y completed a t t h e time t h e l i e n s were f i l e d . They a l s o p o i n t o u t t h e Garrisons had moved i n t o t h e i r residence on December 26, 1974, almost two months before t h e i r l i e n s were f i l e d ; t h a t they had been repeatedly promised payment by t h e Garrisons before they f i l e d t h e i r l i e n s ; and, i f they had waited much longer t o f i l e t h e i r l i e n s they would have l o s t t h e i r l i e n r i g h t s because of t h e ninety day l i m i t a t i o n i n s e c t i o n 45-502, R.C.M. 1947. Additionally, t h e l i e n h o l d e r s argue t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n authorizing an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s t o l i e n h o l d e r s is t o make them whole and t h a t i f a t t o r n e y s f e e s would be avoided by payment of t h e claim a f t e r s u i t was f i l e d but before judgment t h e s a l u t a r y o b j e c t i v e of t h e l i e n s t a t u t e s would be defeated. The homeowners, on t h e other hand, take t h e p o s i t i o n t h e l i e n s a r e invalid because they w e r e f i l e d prematurely before t h e agreed work was completed. Thus, they argue, an i n v a l i d l i e n cannot support an award of attorney f e e s i n a fore- closure a c t i o n . Additionally, t h e homeowners contend t h a t payment i n f u l l of t h e claims on which t h e l i e n s a r e founded p r i o r t o judg- ment discharges any o b l i g a t i o n t o pay attorney fees. They a l s o c l a i m i n t h e i r b r i e f , t h a t they should have been awarded t h e i r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e and had t h e i r t i t l e quieted. Directing our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , w e f i n d t h e l i e n s w e r e f i l e d prematurely and a r e t h e r e f o r e invalid. I n Mon- tana t h e general r u l e i s t h a t t h e l i e n a r i s e s only upon completion of t h e contracted work. Intermountain Electric, Inc. v. Berndt, 164 Mont. 67, 518 P.2d 1168. Although s u b s t a n t i a l performance of t h e contracted work m e e t s t h i s requirement, such s u b s t a n t i a l performance is a condition precedent t o l i a b i l i t y of t h e home- owners. Riddell v. Peck-Williamson Heating & Ventilating Co., 27 Mont. 4 4 , 69 P. 241. Here Western had not s u b s t a n t i a l l y completed i t s contracted work a t t h e t i m e t h e l i e n w a s f i l e d . The manager of Western ad- mitted a t t h e t r i a l t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e l i e n was f i l e d only one of t h e t h r e e t o i l e t s was connected and working, t h e bathtub w a s not hooked up, a t least two washbasins w e r e not hooked up, and t h a t although t h e rough-in plumbing w a s done, a l l t h e f i x t u r e s had t o be set. A testimonial c o n f l i c t on t h e t i m e of completion of t h e heating c o n t r a c t w a s not resolved i n t h e findings of t h e d i s t r i c t court. Defendants' proposed finding t h a t Western had not s u b s t a n t i a l l y completed its contracted work should have been adopted by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n its findings and f a i l u r e t o do SO w a s e r r o r . Insofar a s Metcalf w a s concerned, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t made s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s t h a t he q u i t t h e job on o r about December 6, 1974, because it could n o t be completed due t o inclement weather, never d i d r e t u r n t o complete t h e job; t h a t over 3,000 b r i c k s remained t o be l a i d , t h e p i l l a r s w e r e n o t b u i l t , t h e b r i c k flower bed and t h e b r i c k barbeque remained unfinished a t t h e t i m e he f i l e d h i s l i e n . These f i n d i n g s demonstrate t h e r e was n o t s u b s t a n t i a l completion of t h e c o n t r a c t e d work. The d i r e c t l i e n theory r e l i e d upon by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t does n o t g i v e rise t o l i e n r i g h t s a b s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l performance of t h e contracted work under t h e f a c t s here. This is n o t a c a s e where t h e homeowner agreed t o make p e r i o d i c progress payments as t h e work was performed and t h e m a t e r i a l s supplied; it i s a case where t h e owner c o n t r a c t e d t o have a c e r t a i n job done and pay t h e reasonable v a l u e of t h e l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s with no s p e c i f i c agreement as t o t h e t i m e o f payment. U n t i l t h e c o n t r a c t e d work i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y completed, no o b l i g a t i o n t o pay a r i s e s and no l i e n r i g h t s accrue under such circumstances. A s t h e l i e n s are i n v a l i d because f i l e d prematurely, no r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s e x i s t s . The r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s is purely s t a t u t o r y . The a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e provides f o r t h e allowance of a t t o r n e y f e e s " t o each claimant whose l i e n is e s t a b l i s h e d " . Section 93-8614, R.C.M. 1947. There being no v a l i d l i e n i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , t h e r e can be no award of a t t o r - ney f e e s . The l i e n claimants having been paid i n f u l l f o r t h e con- t r a c t e d work and m a t e r i a l s w i t h i n t e r e s t , no e q u i t a b l e b a s i s e x i s t s f o r an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s where, as here, t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l i e n s w e r e i n v a l i d when f i l e d . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , reason- a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s a r e payable t o defendants under s e c t i o n 93-8614, because p l a i n t i f f s 1 l i e n s w e r e n o t e s t a b l i s h e d . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is reversed. The cause is remanded to the district court for fixing a reasonable attorney fee for defendants1 attorney to be paid by plaintiffs; for deter- mination of whether defendants1 title should be quieted; and for entry of appropriate judgment herein in conformity with this opinion. Justice We concur: