Case Title: STATE EX REL FLORENCE-CARLTON CONS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-40 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE OF MONTANA, upon the relation of FLORENCE-CARLTON CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS DISTRICT 15 & 6 " et al., Petitioners, DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LEWIS & CLARK et ax., Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record: For Petitioners: Herron, Meloy & Llewellyn, Helena, Montana Clayton Herron argued, Helena, Montana and Peter Meloy argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Bellingham & Christenson, Billings, Montana Cresap McCracken argued, Great Falls, Montana Bruce T. Toole argued, Billings, Montana John North, Helena, Montana Robert Gannon, Butte, Montana Thomas D. Ebzery, Billings, Montana Murphy, Robinson Law Firm, Kalispell, Montana Gregory C . Black, Butte, Xuntana Alan Hux and Carol Dunn, Indianapolis, hdiana Hon. John Henson, District Judge, Missoula, Montana Submitted: June 12, 1981 Decided : Filed: AUG 3 - 1981 * Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s a c t i o n was commenced i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of Lewis and C l a r k , by complaint f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment on August 31, 1979. On March 20, 1980, an amended complaint, adding n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s and d e l e t i n g p a r t i e s deemed unnecessary t o t h i s a c t i o n , was f i l e d . P l a i n t i f f s - r e l a t o r s f i l e d a motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a second amended complaint on J u n e 1 8 , 1980. P r i o r t o any a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t r e g a r d i n g t h i s motion, r e l a t o r s f i l e d a second motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a r e v i s e d second amended complaint. Defendants o b j e c t e d t o t h i s motion and r e q u e s t e d s a n c t i o n be imposed upon r e l a t o r s a s a c o n d i t i o n t o proceeding w i t h t h i s r e v i s e d second amended complaint. Respondent D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d t h e motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e t h e r e v i s e d c o m p l a i n t , b u t r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on t h e r e q u e s t e d terms. A f t e r b r i e f i n g by a l l p a r t i e s , r e s p o n d e n t D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t s ' r e q u e s t by imposing an award of c o s t s upon r e l a t o r s a s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t t o proceeding w i t h t h e r e v i s e d second amended complaint. From t h i s o r d e r , r e l a t o r s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . On August 31, 1979, F r i e n d s of t h e E a r t h , I n c . , Edward M . Dobson, Daniel H . Henning, Gary Matson, V i c k i Gale, Robert K . Lendis, t h e Montana Education A s s o c i a t i o n , and t h e Montana S t a t e F e d e r a t i o n of Teachers, a s p l a i n t i f f s , f i l e d a complaint f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a g a i n s t t h e Montana Board o f Land C o m m i s s i o n e r s and Westmoreland Resources, I n c . , a s d e f e n d a n t s . T h i s complaint a l l e g e d b a s i c a l l y t h a t t h e land commissioners were n o t r e q u i r i n g Westmoreland Resources, I n c . , t o pay t h e f u l l market v a l u e f o r r o y a l t y r i g h t s f o r t h e e x t r a c t i o n of c o a l on s t a t e t r u s t l a n d s a s r e q u i r e d by l a w . The c o m p l a i n t p r a y e d f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t h a t c o a l l e a s e s i s s u e d t o Westmoreland by t h e land commissioners were n u l l and v o i d , f o r an a d j u d i c a t i o n of t h e land commissioners1 d u t y t o o b t a i n f u l l market v a l u e , and f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s of s u i t . Westmoreland R e s o u r c e s , I n c . , f i l e d s u c c e s s i v e motions f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge, and t h e Honorable John S. Henson assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n on November 1, 1979. P u r s u a n t t o s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s and o r d e r of t h e c o u r t , an amended complaint was f i l e d on J a n u a r y 17, 1980, which added Florence-Carlton Consolidated Schools, D i s t r i c t s 15 and 6 , a s a p l a i n t i f f t o t h i s a c t i o n . On March 11, 1980, f o l l o w i n g motions, n o t i c e s , and h e a r i n g s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court r u l e d t h a t F r i e n d s of t h e E a r t h , I n c . , d i d n o t have s t a n d i n g and was, t h e r e f o r e , d i s m i s s e d from t h e a c t i o n . The c o u r t a l s o r u l e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s were i n d i s p e n s a b l e t o t h e a c t i o n and ordered p l a i n t i f f s , r e l a t o r s h e r e , t o e f f e c t j o i n d e r of such p a r t i e s . On March 20, 1980, i n compliance w i t h t h i s o r d e r , r e l a t o r s f i l e d an amended complaint j o i n i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f e n d a n t s w i t h t h e l a n d commissioners and Westmoreland Resources, Inc.: Arkland Company; A y r s h i r e Coal Company; t h e C a r t e r O i l Company; Consolidated Coal Company; Decker Coal Company; Gulf O i l Corporation; Mapco, I n c . ; Mobil O i l C o r p o r a t i o n ; S p r i n g C r e e k C o a l Company; Peabody C o a l Company; P e t e r K i e w i t Sons1 Corporation; Robert W. Adams; United S t a t e s S t e e l Corporation; Western Energy Company; Thermal Energy, I n c . ; and Thermal Resources, I n c . The amended complaint sought t o render void a l l s t a t e school land c o a l l e a s e s h e l d by t h e above-named d e f e n d a n t s . I t sought d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a l l e g i n g s o l e l y t h a t t h e r o y a l t y r a t e s i n t h e e x i s t i n g l e a s e s d i d n o t r e f l e c t f u l l mar k e t v a l u e . No a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r i e s o r grounds f o r c h a l l e n g i n g t h e l e a s e s t h a n t h a t included i n t h e o r i g i n a l complaint of August 31, 1979, were included i n t h e amended complaint f i l e d March 20, 1980. On June 1 8 , 1980, r e l a t o r s f i l e d and served a motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t . A l l d e f e n d a n t s , e x c e p t t h e Board o f Land C o m m i s s i o n e r s , Westmoreland Resources, I n c . , Thermal Resources, I n c . , and Thermal Energy, I n c . , had f i l e d r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s t o t h e amended complaint of March 20, 1980, p r i o r t o t h e second motion t o amend. The proposed second amended complaint added an a d d i t i o n a l count i n mandamus and set f o r t h f i v e a d d i t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s , r e a s o n s and b a s e s f o r r e l a t o r s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e c o a l l e a s e s were n u l l and void. Defendant United S t a t e s S t e e l C o r p o r a t i o n o b j e c t e d t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e second amended complaint and, i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , requested t h e c o u r t t o impose s a n c t i o n s upon r e l a t o r s , such s a n c t i o n s t o be a r e a s o n a b l e allowance of a t t o r n e y f e e s n e c e s s a r i l y i n c u r r e d i n p r e p a r i n g an answer t o t h e second amended complaint. T h i s o b j e c t i o n was f i l e d June 24, 1980. P r i o r t o a r u l i n g on e i t h e r r e l a t o r s ' motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a second amended complaint o r United S t a t e s S t e e l ' s o b j e c t i o n t o such motion, r e l a t o r s f i l e d a motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a r e v i s e d second amended complaint on J u l y 16, 1980. The proposed e f f e c t of t h i s r e v i s i o n was t o make t e n changes t o t h e second amended complaint, such changes being m a t t e r s of s t y l e and c o r r e c t usuage, r a t h e r t h a n m a t t e r s of s u b s t a n c e . T h i s motion was n o t i c e d f o r h e a r i n g on August 6 , 1980. P r i o r t o August 6, 1980, a l l d e f e n d a n t s s e r v e d and f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o r e l a t o r s ' motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e t h e second amended complaint r e v i s e d . A l l d e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d s a n c t i o n s o r c o n d i t i o n s be imposed upon r e l a t o r s i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e . F o l l o w i n g h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 6 , 1 9 8 0 , r e s p o n d e n t D i s t r i c t Court r u l e d t h a t l e a v e was g r a n t e d t o r e l a t o r s t o f i l e t h e second amended complaint ( r e v i s e d ) . The c o u r t r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n of i m p o s i t i o n of s a n c t i o n s u n t i l f u r t h e r b r i e f i n g could be submitted by a l l p a r t i e s . On S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 1 9 8 0 , r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e r e q u e s t f o r terms by awarding c o s t s t o d e f e n d a n t s . The award was l i m i t e d by t h e c o u r t t o t h e "expenses, c o s t s , a t t o r n e y f e e s and s o f o r t h t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e i n c u r r e d " r e l a t i n g t o t h e r e v i s e d second amended complaint. D e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d t h a t s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n b e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t by a f f i d a v i t s . The c o u r t r e q u e s t e d such a f f i d a v i t s from d e f e n d a n t s by October 7 , 1980. The c o u r t t h e n g r a n t e d r e l a t o r s u n t i l October 13, 1980, t o review t h e a f f i d a v i t s and d e c i d e whether t o r e q u e s t a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e c o s t s or t o simply f i l e something on t h e r e c o r d . Defendants f i l e d af f i d a v i t s of c o s t s ranging from $209.28 t o $2,520. R e l a t o r s f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t and motions i n o p p o s i t i o n t o c l a i m s f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s on October 13, 1980, b u t f a i l e d t o r e q u e s t a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r . Even- t u a l l y r e l a t o r s d i d f i l e a motion f o r a h e a r i n g on November 28, 1980. The motion, however, came a f t e r t h e imposed d e a d l i n e ; t h u s , t h e c o u r t took no a c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e r e q u e s t . On November 2 8 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e c o u r t awarded e a c h d e f e n d a n t $150 p a r t i a l c o s t s a s a c o n d i t i o n t o r e l a t o r s 1 proceeding on t h e r e v i s e d second amended complaint. The c o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h a t such an award was n o t due t h e Montana Board o f Land C o m m i s s i o n e r s o r Westmoreland R e s o u r c e s b e c a u s e t h o s e d e f e n d a n t s had n o t f i l e d any r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s i n t h e m a t t e r . R e l a t o r s were r e q u i r e d t o make payment w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s a f t e r e n t r y of t h e j udgment . On December 22, 1980, r e l a t o r s d e p o s i t e d w i t h t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t f i v e checks i n t h e amount of $150 each, payable t o t h e f i v e s e p a r a t e law f i r m s handling t h e a c t i o n f o r d e f e n d a n t s . The checks were d e p o s i t e d w i t h t h e e x p r e s s r e s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e y were t o be d e l i v e r e d o n l y i f t h e c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e amount r e c e i v e d was i n f u l l s a t i s f a c t i o n of its o r d e r . These checks, however, were never d e l i v e r e d t o d e f e n s e counsel because on January 9, 1981, Judge Henson wrote r e l a t o r s 1 c o u n s e l , informing him t h a t r e l a t o r s were r e q u i r e d t o pay each d e f e n d a n t d e s i g n a t e d by t h e o r d e r $150, n o t each law f i r m involved ( a t o t a l award of $ 2 , 4 0 0 ) . Subsequently, v a r i o u s d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d motions f o r d i s m i s s a l because of r e l a t o r s 1 noncompliance w i t h t h e o r d e r of November 28, 1980. On January 30, 1981, r e l a t o r s f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l r e g a r d i n g t h e o r d e r awarding c o s t s a s a c o n d i t i o n t o proceeding on t h e r e v i s e d second amended complaint. There have been two i s s u e s submitted t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. Is a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l an a p p r o p r i a t e form of j u d i c i a l review i n t h i s i n s t a n c e ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding " c o s t s " t o d e f e n d a n t s a s a c o n d i t i o n t o r e l a t o r s ' proceeding on t h e second amended complaint ( r e v i s e d ) ? R e l a t o r s contend g e n e r a l l y t h a t t h e r e is no d i r e c t a p p e a l o r o t h e r r e m e d i a l p r o c e d u r e a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . Moreover, i f review is n o t g r a n t e d under t h e p e t i t i o n or t h e award n o t p a i d , r e l a t o r s w i l l be denied t h e r i g h t t o have t h e i r complaint determined i n accordance w i t h due p r o c e s s of law, t h e r e b y r e s u l t i n g i n g r o s s i n j u s t i c e , o p p r e s s i o n and i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y . Regarding t h e second i s s u e r e l a t o r s contend t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court has no a u t h o r i t y t o impose s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t a p a r t y a s a c o n d i t i o n t o allowing proposed amendments t o its p l e a d i n g s . Even i f terms can be imposed, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s awarding of " a t t o r n e y f e e s , " a s opposed t o t h e award of " i n c i d e n t a l c o s t s , " was improper. Furthermore, s i n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t s have n o t been p r e j u d i c e d by t h e amendments and s i n c e r e l a t o r s have n o t engaged i n g r o s s misconduct, t h e i m p o s i t i o n of s a n c t i o n s cannot be j u s t i f i e d . Respondent contends f i r s t t h a t t h e r e l i e f asked f o r by r e l a t o r s is n o t a proper a r e a f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . The o r d e r awarding " c o s t s " is i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n n a t u r e and does n o t p r e s e n t e x t r a o r d i n a r y or compelling circumstances beyond simply r e q u i r i n g r e l a t o r s t o proceed t o t r i a l . The i s s u e r a i s e d by r e l a t o r s can e a s i l y be r a i s e d on a p p e a l a f t e r a t r i a l h a s been had on t h e m e r i t s and a judgment rendered t h e r e o n . Respondent f u r t h e r contends t h a t a u t h o r i t y t o impose c o n d i t i o n s on r e l a t o r s ' r e q u e s t t o amend t h e i r complaint is drawn from t h e language i n Rule 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., which p r o v i d e s t h a t ". . . a p a r t y may amend h i s p l e a d i n g s o n l y by l e a v e of c o u r t or by w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y ; and l e a v e s h a l l be f r e e l y g i v e n when j u s t i c e s o r e q u i r e s . " Thus, t h e D i s t r i c t Court is empowered t o a c t a s j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s , t o s a f e g u a r d t h e p a r t i e s from p r e j u d i c e b y imposing such terms a s a r e j u s t upon t h e p a r t y r e q u e s t i n g t h e amendment. Here, d e f e n d a n t s have been p r e j u d i c e d t o t h e e x t e n t o f i n c u r r i n g s u b s t a n t i a l c o s t s a s a r e s u l t o f r e l a t o r s ' d e s i r e t o expand t h e i r c o m p l a i n t t o i n c l u d e a d d i t i o n a l l e g a l t h e o r i e s and r e l i e f , t h e r e b y j u s t i f y i n g t h e i m p o s i t i o n of terms. Respondent r a i s e s a t h i r d i s s u e on appeal: Did t h e r e l a t o r s waive any r i g h t t o an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e award t o be g i v e n , e i t h e r by f a i l i n g t o make a t i m e l y r e q u e s t f o r such a h e a r i n g o r by a t t e m p t i n g t o comply w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r ? The i s s u e , however, need n o t be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n t h a t r e l a t o r s have s t a t e d i n t h e i r r e p l y b r i e f t h a t t h e y do n o t seek a h e a r i n g on t h e amount of t h e award t o be g r a n t e d under t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r . The r e l a t o r s ' s o l e c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t no amount can be p r o p e r l y awarded under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and, t h u s , a h e a r i n g is n o t r e q u i r e d . Proper j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e s freedom of a c t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r i o r t o t r i a l and n o n i n t e r f e r e n c e on our p a r t a t t h i s s t a g e of t h e proceeding. S t a t e ex r e l . Kosena v . D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 21, 560 P.2d 522. The i n s t i t u t i o n of an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n t h i s Court seeking a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l can be j u s t i f i e d , however, when t h e r e is no d i r e c t appeal o r o t h e r remedial procedure a v a i l a b l e t o p r o v i d e r e l i e f from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a c t i o n and when e x t r a o r d i n a r y and compelling circumstances a r e p r e s e n t e d . See Rule 17 ( a ) , M.R.App.Civ.P. I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , no d i r e c t a p p e a l is a v a i l a b l e from t h e o r d e r r e q u i r i n g r e l a t o r s t o pay t h e award t o d e f e n d a n t s a s a c o n d i t i o n t o allowing t h e amendment of t h e i r complaint. Furthermore, w e f i n d t h a t e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e p r e s e n t which r e q u i r e an i n q u i r y i n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s proceedings p r i o r t o t r i a l and f i n a l judgment. I f we d e c l i n e d t o review t h e m a t t e r a t t h i s s t a g e , r e l a t o r s could b e p r e c l u d e d from p r o c e e d i n g on a l l c o u n t s t h e y deem n e c e s s a r y f o r a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f , r e s u l t i n g i n a p o s s i b l e improper d e n i a l of t h e i r r i g h t of a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t s . The major i s s u e i n t h i s proceeding is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court was w i t h i n its j u r i s d i c t i o n i n imposing terms upon t h e allowance of r e l a t o r s ' amended complaint. Rule 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : ". . . Otherwise a p a r t y may amend h i s p l e a d i n g o n l y by l e a v e of t h e c o u r t o r by w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y ; and l e a v e s h a l l be f r e e l y g i v e n when j u s t i c e s o r e q u i r e s . " Rule 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., a s c i t e d above, is i d e n t i c a l t o Rule 1 5 ( a ) of t h e f e d e r a l r u l e s under which it is widely h e l d t h a t it is w i t h i n a c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o impose terms o r c o n d i t i o n s upon g r a n t i n g a motion f o r l e a v e t o amend. See Key Pharmaceuticals, I n c . v. Lowey (S.D. N . Y . 1 9 7 2 ) , 54 F.R.D. 447; S h e r r e l l v . M i t c h e l l Aero, I n c . ( D . Wisc. 1 9 7 1 ) , 340 F.Supp. 219; Thermodynamics Corp. v . Union Carbide Corp. ( D . N . H . 1 9 6 7 ) , 42 F.R.D. 607; J a c o b s v. McCloskey & Co. ( E . D . Pa. 1 9 6 6 ) , 40 F.R.D. 486. Comments and r e a s o n s f o r upholding such an e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n is f u l l y d i s c u s s e d i n 6 Wright & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and Procedure, C i v i l " R u l e 1 5 ( a ) g i v e s t h e c o u r t e x t e n s i v e d i s c r e t i o n t o d e c i d e whether t o g r a n t l e a v e t o amend a f t e r t h e t i m e f o r amendment a s of c o u r s e has passed. I n a d d i t i o n , a number of c o u r t s have concluded t h a t it g i v e s them a u t h o r i t y t o impose c o n d i t i o n s when permission t o amend is allowed . . . The s t a t e m e n t i n Rule 1 5 ( a ) t h a t ' l e a v e s h a l l be f r e e l y g i v e n when j u s t i c e s o r e q u i r e s ' p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t t h e c o u r t may u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o impose c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e a l l o w a n c e o f a p r o p o s e d amendment a s a n a p p r o p r i a t e means of b a l a n c i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e amendment and t h o s e of t h e p a r t y o b j e c t i n g t o it. The i m p o s i t i o n o f t e r m s o f t e n w i l l f u r t h e r t h e r u l e ' s l i b e r a l amendment p o l i c y . I f t h e p a r t y opposing t h e amendment can be p r o t e c t e d by t h e u s e o f c o n d i t i o n s from a n y p o s s i b l e p r e j u d i c e t h a t m i g h t r e s u l t f r o m t h e u n t i m e l i n e s s of t h e amendment, t h e r e is no j u s t i f i a b l e reason f o r n o t allowing i t . " See a l s o 3 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e tl15.08 [ 6 ] . A s a r e s u l t of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o impose terms, t h e q u e s t i o n now becomes whether t h e c o u r t i n t h i s i n s t a n c e abused its d i s c r e t i o n . I n t h i s r e g a r d , t h e most important f a c t o r , and perhaps t h e most f r e q u e n t reason g i v e n f o r denying l e a v e t o amend, is t h a t t h e opposing p a r t y w i l l be p r e j u d i c e d i f t h e movant is p e r m i t t e d t o a l t e r h i s p l e a d i n g . M i t c h e l l v . M i t c h e l l ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 134, 545 P.2d 657. Other f a c t o r s t o be considered a r e t h e good f a i t h of t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e amendment, t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e movant's d e l a y , and t h e l e n g t h of t h e d e l a y . M i t c h e l l v. M i t c h e l l , supra; 6 Wright & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and Procedure, C i v i l 55 1487, 1488. Here, t h e o r i g i n a l complaint was f i l e d on August 31, 1979. The complaint a l l e g e d t h a t c e r t a i n c o a l l e a s e s e n t e r e d i n t o by d e f e n d a n t S t a t e Board of Land Commissioners and t h e remaining d e f e n d a n t s were v o i d a b l e o r v o i d . The complaint was grounded on t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e Board, by e n t e r i n g i n t o l e a s e s which provided f o r a r o y a l t y r a t e below f u l l market v a l u e , was i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 77-3-315, MCA, and, t h u s , was i n breach of t r u s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s owed t o r e l a t o r s . R e l a t o r s prayed t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g t h e d u t y of t h e Board of Land Commissioners t o o b t a i n t h e f u l l market v a l u e of t h e l a n d and d e c l a r i n g t h e l e a s e s n u l l and void f o r t h e B o a r d ' s f a i l u r e t o a b i d e by t h i s d u t y . C e r t a i n p l a i n t i f f s were d i s m i s s e d f r o m t h e proceedings and a d d i t i o n a l p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s were joined by o r d e r of t h e c o u r t and s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s i n amended complaints f i l e d on J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1980 and March 20, 1980. No a d d i t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s o r t h e o r i e s c h a l l e n g i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e l e a s e s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e s e c o m p l a i n t s . On June 18, 1980, r e l a t o r s f i l e d t h e i r motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e t h e second amended complaint. T h i s motion was made a f t e r a l l b u t four of t h e d e f e n d a n t s had f i l e d r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s and grounds f o r r e l i e f s e t f o r t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l and amended complaint. The second amended complaint a g a i n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c o a l l e a s e s were void or v o i d a b l e . R e l a t o r s , however, i n s u p p o r t i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n expanded t h e t h e o r y of t h e i r case t o i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n t e n t i o n s n o t p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t : (1) The Board, by e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e l e a s e s , had a c t e d i n v i o l a t i o n of A r t . X , S e c t i o n 11, 1972 Mont.Const.; of s e c t i o n 81-501 t h r o u g h 81-551, R.C.M. 1947 ( s e c t i o n s 77-3-301 through 77-3-321, MCA) ; s e c t i o n 81-103, R.C . M . 1947 ( s e c t i o n s 77-1-202 a n d 7 7 - 1 - 2 0 3 ( 1 ) , M C A ) ; s e c t i o n 77-1-102, MCA; and t h e laws of t h e S t a t e of Montana and t h e United S t a t e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e powers and o b l i g a t i o n s o f t r u s t e e s . ( 2 ) The Board h a s v i o l a t e d its t r u s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n wasting t h e a s s e t s of t h e t r u s t by removing t h e s u b j e c t of t h e t r u s t ( c o a l d e p o s i t s ) from t h e c o m p e t i t i v e market, wherein a g r e a t e r r o y a l t y r a t e could be o b t a i n e d , f o r an unconscionable p e r i o d of t i m e . ( 3 ) The Board h a s f u r t h e r v i o l a t e d i t s t r u s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s by f a i l i n g t o e f f e c t a f o r f e i t u r e of t h e l e a s e s on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t lessees have breached an implied covenant t o develop, produce and market t h e c o a l . (Defendant l e s s e e s a l l e g e d l y have y e t t o develop t h e land f o r c o a l p r o d u c t i o n . ) ( 4 ) The Board, by g r a n t i n g a u n i l a t e r a l , preemptory r i g h t of t e r m i n a t i o n t o d e f e n d a n t l e s s e e s w i t h o u t r e c e i v i n g a s i m i l a r r i g h t , h a s unreasonably r e l i n q u i s h e d c o n t r o l of t r u s t a s s e t s without m u t u a l i t y or c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ( 5 ) The r o y a l t y r a t e s i n t h e l e a s e do n o t r e p r e s e n t f u l l and f a i r market v a l u e a s compared w i t h o t h e r r o y a l t i e s on contiguous or s i m i l a r l a n d . The l e a s e s have t h u s reduced t h e f u l l market v a l u e of t h e e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i n g a d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of t h e purpose of t h e t r u s t t o o b t a i n t h e maximum b e n e f i t f o r i t s b e n e f i c i a r i e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o expanding t h e t h e o r y of t h e i r a c t i o n , r e l a t o r s ' second amended complaint a l s o expanded t h e p r a y e r f o r r e l i e f t o i n c l u d e a r e q u e s t f o r a w r i t of mandamus compelling t h e Board t o void t h e l e a s e s and t o make t h e l a n d a v a i l a b l e f o r new and r e n e g o t i a t e d l e a s e s . Upon r e c e i v i n g t h e motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e t h i s amended complaint, d e f e n d a n t s o b j e c t e d and argued t h a t , i f l e a v e was g r a n t e d , i t s h o u l d b e made c o n d i t i o n a l . Defendants' r e q u e s t was based on a c o n t e n t i o n t h a t by allowing t h e amendment, t h e y would be p r e j u d i c e d t o t h e e x t e n t of i n c u r r i n g s u b s t a n t i a l c o s t s . The D i s t r i c t Court a g r e e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t s ' p o s i t i o n and imposed t e r m s i n g r a n t i n g r e l a t o r s ' motion. I n t h e i r p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l r e l a t o r s argue t h a t s i n c e formal d i s c o v e r y proceedings had n o t been i n s t i t u t e d e . , i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s s e r v e d o r d e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n ) and s i n c e t h e c a s e had n o t been set f o r t r i a l or b r i e f i n g on t h e m e r i t s , t h e r e was no p r e j u d i c e t o d e f e n d a n t s caused by f i l i n g t h e second amended complaint. The o n l y r e t r a c i n g o f e f f o r t r e q u i r e d o f d e f e n d a n t s , m a i n t a i n s r e l a t o r s , would be t o f i l e amended answers. W e f i n d t h a t g e n e r a l l y t h e D i s t r i c t Court h a s t h e power t o impose terms o r c o n d i t i o n s on l e a v e t o f i l e an amended c o m p l a i n t . R e l a t o r s a r g u e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g " a t t o r n e y f e e s " a s a component of t h e p a r t i a l c o s t s g r a n t e d a s a c o n d i t i o n t o t h e i r amendment. I n s u p p o r t of t h e argument, r e l a t o r s r e l y upon t h e g e n e r a l r u l e adopted by t h i s Court t h a t i n t h e absence of a c o n t r a c t u a l agreement o r s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y , a t t o r n e y f e e s a r e n o t r e c o v e r a b l e . See Winer v. J o n a l Corporation ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 247, 545 P.2d 1094; Kintner v. Harr ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 461, 408 P.2d 487. R e l a t o r s have p r o p e r l y set f o r t h t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i n r e g a r d t o an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s . I t should be noted, however, t h a t t h e r u l e h a s been expanded t o i n c l u d e allowing a t t o r n e y f e e s i n s p i t e of t h e absence o f any s p e c i f i c s t a t u t e o r c o n t r a c t u a l agreement, s o l e l y upon e q u i t a b l e grounds. See Means v. Montana Power Company ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 625 P.2d 32, 38 St.Rep. 351. I t is upon t h i s same i n h e r e n t e q u i t a b l e power t h a t o t h e r c o u r t s have allowed t h e i m p o s i t i o n of an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s a s a c o n d i t i o n t o amendment. See M a t l a c k , I n c . v . Hupp C o r p o r a t i o n (E.D. Pa. 1 9 7 2 ) , 57 F.R.D. 151; M i r a b e l l a v. Banco I n d u s t r i a l de l a Republics A r g e n t i n a ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 34 App.Div.2d 6 3 0 , 309 N.Y.S.2d 400; William v. Myer ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 150 Cal. 714, 89 P. 972. I f , under a l l of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of a c a s e , j u s t i c e would r e q u i r e t h e i m p o s i t i o n of c o s t s a s a c o n d i t i o n t o allowing an amendment, e q u i t y can f u r t h e r , i n extreme c a s e s , a l l o w , a s a n e l e m e n t o f t h o s e c o s t s , a t t o r n e y f e e s . P r e j u d i c e t o a p a r t y i n t h i s kind of c a s e r e s u l t i n g from an amended complaint is n o t l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o g e n e r a l c o s t s expended i n undertaking a d d i t i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n b u t o b v i o u s l y can i n c l u d e a t t o r n e y f e e s expended i n responding t o i s s u e s or t h e o r i e s n o t p r e v i o u s l y a s s e r t e d . T h i s d i s c r e t i o n by t h e c o u r t , however, should be c a r e f u l l y and s p a r i n g l y used and t h e c o u r t should be c a r e f u l t h a t a spin-off d o e s n o t d e v e l o p which would o r could deny t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t and a f a i r t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . R e l a t o r s ' f i n a l argument is t h a t t h e $150 award t o each d e f e n d a n t is unsupported, unreasonable, and amounts t o a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Due t o r e l a t o r s ' f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y r e q u e s t a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r , t h e o n l y evidence upon which t h e award could be based is c o n t a i n e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t s submitted by t h e p a r t i e s l i s t i n g t h e c o s t s i n c u r r e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e amendment. The t o t a l c o s t s l i s t e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t s ( i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s ) ranged from $209.28 t o $2,520. These c l a i m s r e p r e s e n t e x p e n d i t u r e s made by t h e v a r i o u s law f i r m s , which i n some i n s t a n c e s r e p r e s e n t more t h a n one defendant. I t would appear t h a t t h e c l a i m s have been i n f l a t e d w i t h i n a p p r o p r i a t e e x p e n d i t u r e s ( i . e . , expenses and f e e s f o r a l l s e r v i c e s a s t o a l l p l e a d i n g s t o d a t e , n o t j u s t t h o s e expenses and f e e s r e l a t e d t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t ) . T h i s , however, does n o t i n v a l i d a t e t h e $150 assessment, a t l e a s t mathematically. A s i n d i c a t e d h e r e i n , w e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o impose c o n d i t i o n s on a r e q u e s t t o amend p l e a d i n g s , a s or when j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s . The i m p o s i t i o n of such s a n c t i o n s , however, r e q u i r e s a showing of e x t r a o r d i n a r y p r e j u d i c e . W e do n o t f i n d s u f f i c i e n t s t r e n g t h i n t h e r e c o r d h e r e t o s u p p o r t t h i s d e g r e e o f p r e j u d i c e ; nor d i d a l l p a r t i e s s u f f e r t h e same k i n d o r amount o f p r e j u d i c e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e o r d e r imposing cash s a n c t i o n s is v a c a t e d and set a s i d e , w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , s o t h a t t h e m a t t e r can be r a i s e d on an a p p e a l , i f a p p r o p r i a t e . We concur: D'strict Judge, sitting in p 4 ace of Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell