Title: LYTHGOE v FIRST SECURITY BANK OF H

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 8 5 - 6 0 2 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1 9 8 6 THOMAS LYTHGOE, CHUCK NOTBOHM, GARY LYTHGOE and J E A N N I E LYTHGOE, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vs- F I R S T SECURITY BANK O F HELENA, D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 for t h e C o u n t y of L e w i s & C l a r k , T h e H o n o r a b l e T h o m a s H o n z e l , Judge presiding. COUNSEL O F RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : Peterson, Schofield & L e c k i e ; V. Joe L e c k i e , B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : D o n a l d A. G a r r i t y , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : A p r i l 2 4 , 1 9 8 6 D e c i d e d : June 1 9 , 1 9 8 6 C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr. 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 s appeal t h e October 30, 1985, order 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 Court dismissing t h e i r complaint because it was not prosecuted by t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t a s required by Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. W e affirm. I n December o f 1982, defendant bank loaned $47,000 t o P a t r i c k and Joan Flaherty f o r t h e purpose of purchasing a r e s t a u r a n t i n Helena, Montana, from p l a i n t i f f s Chuck and Betty Notbohm. Flahertys agreed t o pay Notbohms $28,000 and assume a Small Business Administration loan of $62,000. Shortly t h e r e a f t e r , Tomas Lythgoe borrowed $15,000 from Gary and Jeannie Lythgoe, and invested those funds i n t h e F l a h e r t y ' s r e s t a u r a n t . Each of t h e Lythgoes a r e named p l a i n - t i f f s i n t h i s action. I n August of 1983, defendant a c c e l e r a t e d t h e note due from Flahertys. The r e s t a u r a n t closed i n October 1983, and pursuant t o terms of t h e note and t h e s e c u r i t y agreement between defendant and Flahertys, defendant s o l d t h e a s s e t s of t h e r e s t a u r a n t . Following c l o s u r e of t h e r e s t a u r a n t , Flahertys were without means t o pay debts owed t o Notbohms and Tomas Lythgoe. Lythgoes and Notbohms f i l e d s u i t a g a i n s t defendant a l l e g i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e with t h e c o n t r a c t s between Flahertys and p l a i n t i f f s , breach of implied c o n t r a c t with p l a i n t i f f s , and breach of t h e duty of good f a i t h and f a i r dealing. Flahertys were not named a s p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e action. Defendant responded t o t h e complaint with a motion t o dismiss pursuant t o Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., which r e q u i r e s t h a t every a c t i o n s h a l l be prosecuted i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . Defendants contended Flahertys were t h e only p a r t y t o t h e c o n t r a c t with defendant, and without Flahertys named a s p l a i n t i f f s no a c t i o n could be commenced. The D i s t r i c t Court agreed Lythgoes and Notbohms were not t h e r e a l p a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t and by order dated October 30, 1985, granted defendant's motion t o dismiss. P l a i n t i f f s appeal and r a i s e t h e following issue: Does p l a i n t i f f s ' complaint s e t f o r t h a cause o f a c t i o n upon which r e l i e f may be granted? F i r s t , w e must determine whether Lythgoes and Notbohms can r e l y on t h e c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between Bank and Flahertys. To s t a t e a cause of a c t i o n , p l a i n t i f f s must show they a r e t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . Lefebure e t . a l . v. Baker e t . a l (1923) 69 Mont. 193, 220 P . 1111. Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. r e q u i r e s t h a t "Every a c t i o n s h a l l be prosecuted i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . " W e agree with t h e District Court t h a t p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s a c t i o n a r e n o t t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t i n s o f a r a s t h e Flaherty c o n t r a c t is concerned. P l a i n t i f f s ' complaint a l l e g e s defendant breached an implied c o n t r a c t between defendant and p l a i n t i f f s . Plain- t i f f s c i t e a l e t t e r from a v i c e p r e s i d e n t of t h e defendant bank addressed t o Tomas Lythgoe a s evidence of an implied c o n t r a c t . The letter reads i n p a r t : "The c o l l a t e r a l secur- i n g your loan has been s o l d leaving an unpaid balance of $24,399.38 p l u s i n t e r e s t . A d e f i n i t e arrangement must be made f o r t h e o r d e r l y settlement of t h i s debt." A n implied c o n t r a c t i s defined i n S 28-2-103, MCA, a s "one t h e existence and t e r m s of which a r e manifested by conduct. I' The above l e t t e r r e f l e c t s an attempt by defendant t o c o l l e c t a loan from Tomas Lythgoe; it does not e s t a b l i s h t h e t e r m s nor t h e e x i s t e n c e of an implied c o n t r a c t between defendant and Lythgoe. P l a i n t i f f s o f f e r no o t h e r evidence. W e agree with t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e r e is i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e of breach of implied c o n t r a c t . The next i s s u e i s whether defendant i n t e r f e r e d with p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t r a c t r i g h t s . Defendant accelerated t h e note due from Flahertys. Flahertys d e f a u l t e d on t h e note, and defendant sold t h e a s s e t s of t h e r e s t a u r a n t . Subsequently, Flahertys were unable t o pay t h e d e b t s owed t o p l a i n t i f f s . P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e defendant wrongfully a c c e l e r a t e d t h e note due from Flahertys. A n e s s e n t i a l element of an a c t i o n f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e with c o n t r a c t r i g h t s i s t h e i n t e n t i o n a l doing of a wrongful a c t without j u s t i f i c a t i o n o r excuse. Taylor v. Anaconda Federal C r e d i t Union (1976), 1 7 0 Mont. 51, 550 P.2d 151. P l a i n t i f f s have not a l l e g e d any f a c t s supporting t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n t h a t defendant wrongfully accelerated F l a h e r t y s ' note. A statement of l e g a l conclusion without any supporting f a c t s is i n s u f f i c i e n t a s a claim f o r r e l i e f . Meinecke v. McFarland (1949) 1 2 2 Mont. 515, 206 P.2d 1 0 1 2 . W e f i n d p l a i n t i f f s ' claim of i n t e r f e r e n c e with c o n t r a c t r i g h t s t o be a m e r e conclusion of law and shows no entitlement t o r e l i e f . F i n a l l y , we f i n d p l a i n t i f f s ' claim of defendant's breach of t h e duty of good f a i t h and f a i r dealing t o be e n t i r e l y without merit. The complaint contains no f a c t s e s t a b l i s h i n g defendant owed such a duty t o p l a i n t i f f s . The D i s t r i c t Court was c o r r e c t i n dismissing t h e case. Affirmed. We Concur: /-