Case Title: HOLLINGER v MCMICHAEL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 14600 IN THE SUPHEME C O W O F THE STATE O F FJSXFANA 19 79 Plaintiff and Appellant, G L A D Y S L. McMICTWL, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable EXiward Dussault, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: George, W i l l i a m s & Benn, Missoula, mntana For Respondent: Skelton and Knight, Missoula, mntana Sdmitted on briefs: April 5, 1979 Decided: Mh'f 1 6 1979 - Filed: : . . , .- . ~ - M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f appeals t h e determination of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County, r e f u s i n g t o award h i s counsel a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r work done on a suc- c e s s f u l appeal and post-appeal m a t t e r s . This a c t i o n began A p r i l 9, 1976, on which d a t e p l a i n - t i f f f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t defendant f o r a breach of a r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t . The D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r summary judgment on October 1 8 , 1977. Defendant appealed t h e r u l i n g on t h e motion f o r summary judgment, and p l a i n t i f f cross-appealed t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o amend t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment concerning a t t o r n e y f e e s . This Court considered t h e matter and, on June 19, 1978, affirmed t h e summary judgment. That p o r t i o n of t h e judgment awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s w a s reversed, and t h e m a t t e r remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. Hollinger v. McMichael (1978), Mont. I 580 P.2d 927, 35 St.Rep. 856. The D i s t r i c t Court presided over a hearing on September 21, 1978. On September 28, 1978, judgment was e n t e r e d awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r s e r v i c e s rendered through t h e t i m e of hearing on t h e motion f o r summary judgment. I n i t s judgment, t h e D i s t r i c t Court s t a t e d : " [ t l h e Supreme Court d i d n o t allow c o s t s o r a t t o r n e y f e e s on appeal t o e i t h e r s i d e . Therefore, t h e itemized c o s t s and f e e s on appeal by P l a i n t i f f a r e hereby denied." P l a i n t i f f appeals t h e r e f u s a l t o award f e e s f o r s e r v i c e s rendered i n t h e appeal and i n conjunction w i t h t h e e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. Only one i s s u e i s presented on appeal: Did t h e D i s - t r i c t Court err i n r e f u s i n g t o award a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l work? I f s o , what amount should be awarded? W e f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o award a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l work done on t h e appeal. H e r e , defendant, i n appealing t h e summary judgment d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, p u t p l a i n t i f f t o t h e expense of an appeal i n t h i s Court. Defendant f a i l e d t o o v e r r u l e t h e judgment of t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court. See, Hollinger v. McMichael, supra. The D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying p l a i n t i f f ' s r e q u e s t f o r f e e s i n c u r r e d by t h e appeal. P l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e reasonable f e e s which r e s u l t e d from defen- d a n t ' s breach of t h e l i s t i n g agreement. The record shows t h a t p l a i n t i f f submitted t o t h e is- t r i c t Court an a f f i d a v i t showing 58-1/2 hours of work f o r a t o t a l of $2,071.88 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and $128.38 i n c o s t s , which w e f i n d reasonable. The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and a judgment f o r $2,071.88 a t t o r n e y f e e s p l u s $128.38 c o s t s i s hereby awarded. W e concur: i e f J u s t l c QJl-4. *, J u s t i c e s M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell s p e c i a l l y concurring: I concur i n t h e foregoing opinion, but want t o make it c l e a r t h a t t h e b a s i s f o r awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s c a s e i s a provision i n t h e r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g agreement between t h e p a r t i e s providing f o r such award. 3h-Q 8 Chief J u s t i c e M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea s p e c i a l l y concurring: I concur i n t h i s opinion on t h e same b a s i s a s does Chief J u s t i c e Haswell.