Title: KADILLAK v DEPT OF STATE LANDS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-254 IN THE SUPREYE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 GEORGE and MARIE KADILLAK, husband & wife, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, -vs- MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, In and for the County of Silver Bow, The Honor- able Gordon R . Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants; .McGarvey, Lence & Heberling; John L. Heberling, argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: John F. North, Dept. of State Lands, Helena, Morrtana Submitted: January 15, 1982 Decided: April 26, 1982 Filed: APR 2 6 1982 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . I n a p r i o r d e c i s i o n t h i s Court remanded t h i s c a s e t o t h e S i l v e r Bow D i s t r i c t Court f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on a t t o r n e y f e e s . The District Court awarded t h e f e e s based on Montana's w r i t of mandate s t a t u t e . The p l a i n t i f f s appeal t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s and costs. The o r i g i n a l case, ~ a d i l l a k v. Anaconda Co. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 602 P.2d 147, 36 St.Rep. 1820, involved an appeal from a District Court o r d e r denying p l a i n t i f f s r e l i e f on t h e i r c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e Anaconda Company and v a r i o u s s t a t e a g e n c i e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t and o p e r a t i o n of a waste dump n e a r t h e p l a i n t i f f s' r e s i d e n c e s i n B u t t e , Montana. his Court g r a n t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f s a w r i t of mandate a g a i n s t t h e Department of S t a t e Lands ( S t a t e L a n d s ) , e n j o i n e d t h e Anaconda Company from using t h e w a s t e dump u n t i l a v a l i d p e r m i t was o b t a i n e d , and remanded t h e c a s e f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e w r i t of mandate s t a t u t e . An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on a t t o r n e y f e e s was h e l d on J u n e 3 , 1980. A t t h e h e a r i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y , Jon H e b e r l i n g , r e q u e s t e d f e e s f o r 90% o f t h e total hours s p e n t on t h e case, t h e number of h o u r s he claimed were a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e mandamus a c t i o n a g a i n s t S t a t e Lands. H e contended t h a t i n o r d e r t o pre- v a i l on t h e mandamus i s s u e it w a s n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v i d e proof of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , proof of t h e e q u i t i e s involved i n t h e case, proof o f s t a n d i n g , and proof to meet t h e d e f e n s e of s u b s t a n t i a l compliance w i t h t h e p e r m i t r e q u i r e m e n t s . C l a y t o n Herron, an experienced t r i a l a t t o r n e y , t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s . H e had n o t been involved i n t h e a c t u a l t r i a l o f t h e case b u t had been asked by t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o review t h e t r i a l r e c o r d and to g i v e an o p i n i o n a s to what he c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a r e a s o n a b l e number of h o u r s to have s p e n t on the mandamus i s s u e . M r . Herron noted t h a t o u t of numerous c a u s e s of a c t i o n pleaded a g a i n s t s i x d e f e n d a n t s , t h e p l a i n t i f f s p r e v a i l e d a g a i n s t o n l y one d e f e n d a n t and o n l y on t h e ground t h a t the p e r m i t a p p l i - c a t i o n was i n a d e q u a t e . Because so many i s s u e s had been r a i s e d and so much e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , he s t a t e d t h a t i n h i s o p i n i o n t h e o n l y p r o d u c t i v e way t o f i x a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e award was to estimate t h e number of h o u r s it would have t a k e n to b r i n g to t r i a l and a p p e a l t h e mandamus i s s u e . Based on h i s own e x p e r i e n c e h e e s t i m a t e d t h a t 130 h o u r s would have been needed a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l and 40 to 50 h o u r s on a p p e a l . A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g , t h e District Court judge awarded p l a i n - t i f f s $11,300 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and $7,924.39 i n costs. In h i s memorandum o p i n i o n t h e judge s t a t e d t h a t under t h e language of t h e mandamus s t a t u t e t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s was to be based s o l e l y on t h e number of h o u r s s p e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y on t h e man- damus i s s u e and n o t t h e total number of hours involved i n t h e case. H e s t a t e d t h a t it was n o t p o s s i b l e to isolate o r c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e mandamus i s s u e and t h a t t h e ele- ments of p l e a d i n g and proof i n t h e case were so i n t e r t w i n e d and convoluted t h a t no r a t i o n a l a l l o c a t i o n of a t t o r n e y e f f o r t could b e made. T h e r e f o r e he based t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s on t h e number of h o u r s M r . Herron e s t i m a t e d as r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e man- damus i s s u e . However, because he determined t h a t t h e case had been complex, t h e l i t i g a t i o n i m p o r t a n t , t h e s k i l l of t h e attor- n e y s of a h i g h o r d e r , and t h e d e s i r e d r e s u l t had been o b t a i n e d , t h e judge awarded t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s a t a h i g h e r r a t e p e r hour t h a n was recommended by M r . Herron. Costs were awarded o n l y f o r t h e items s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA. The ~ i s t r i c t Court judge s t a t e d t h a t h e knew of no r e a l i s t i c formula f o r s e g r e g a t i n g t h e c o s t s f o r t h e mandamus i s s u e and t h e r e f o r e awarded p l a i n t i f f s t h e t o t a l costs i n c u r r e d i n t h e case f o r t h e items l i s t e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . However he denied t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t f o r prejudgment i n t e r e s t on t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . The p l a i n t i f f s raise t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s i n t h i s a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court err i n its d e t e r m i n a t i o n of r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s ? 2. Is prejudgment i n t e r e s t a l l o w a b l e on a t t o r n e y f e e s awarded under t h e mandamus s t a t u t e ? 3. Did t h e District Court err i n r e f u s i n g to award as "damages" w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA, cer- t a i n l i t i g a t i o n expenses? 4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n r e f u s i n g to award as costs under s e c t i o n 25-10-201 ( 9 ) , MCA, c e r t a i n l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s ? The f i r s t i s s u e d e a l s w i t h a t t o r n e y f e e s . S e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " I f judgment is g i v e n f o r t h e [ w r i t of mandate] a p p l i c a n t : "(1) he may r e c o v e r t h e damages which he h a s s u s t a i n e d . . . t o g e t h e r w i t h costs . . ." Reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s are damages w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h i s s t a t u t e . S t a t e v. District Court ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 127 Mont. 32, 256 P.2d 1076; S t a t e v. B a t a n i ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 1 0 3 Mont. 353, 62 P.2d 565. The District Court c o r r e c t l y concluded t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s o n l y f o r an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s for t h e number of hours s p e n t b y t h e a t t o r n e y on t h e mandamus i s s u e . The District Court determined t h a t t h e e l e m e n t s of p l e a d i n g and proof were so i n t e r t w i n e d and convoluted i n t h i s case t h a t no r a t i o n a l a l l o c a t i o n of a t t o r n e y e f f o r t on t h e man- damus i s s u e could be made based on t h e t r i a l r e c o r d . T h e r e f o r e t h e award was based on M r . H e r r o n v s estimate of t h e number of h o u r s r e q u i r e d to p r e v a i l on t h e mandamus i s s u e . The p l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t it was improper f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court to base t h e award on M r . H e r r o n ' s estimate r a t h e r t h a n on t h e scope of e v i - dence r e a s o n a b l y a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e case. I n response to p l a i n t i f f s v c o n t e n t i o n we n o t e f i r s t t h a t it is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge to d e t e r - mine r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s and h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h u n l e s s an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n is shown. G l i c k v. S t a t e , Montana Department of ~ n s t i t u t i o n s ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 165 Mont. 307, 528 P.2d 686; Luebben v. Metlen ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 110 Mont, 350, 100 P.2d 935. W e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n h e r e . The o r i g i n a l t r i a l i n t h i s case l a s t e d f o r t h i r t e e n days and involved s i x d e f e n d a n t s and f o u r t e e n s e p a r a t e c o u n t s ranging from c o u n t s i n n u i s a n c e and t r e s p a s s t o a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of t h e Montana Environmental P o l i c y A c t , t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e Hard Rock Mining A c t , t h e Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t and t h e Clean A i r A c t . The case was complex and involved numerous i s s u e s o t h e r than t h e mandamus i s s u e upon which t h e p l a i n t i f f s u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l e d on a p p e a l . S i n c e t h e a t t o r n e y f e e award is t o be based o n l y on t h e hours s p e n t by t h e a t t o r n e y on t h e man- damus i s s u e and s i n c e t h e e l e m e n t s of proof i n t h e case were so i n t e r t w i n e d , t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge d i d n o t abuse h i s d i s c r e - t i o n i n b a s i n g t h e award on t h e e s t i m a t e g i v e n by an experienced t r i a l a t t o r n e y a s to t h e number of hours n e c e s s a r y to p r e v a i l on t h e mandamus i s s u e . The p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t t h e judge e r r e d a s a matter of l a w i n f a i l i n g to base t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s on e v i d e n c e r e a s o n a b l y a d m i s s i b l e on t h e mandamus i s s u e , i n c l u d i n g proof r e l a t e d to s t a n d i n g , i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , t h e e q u i t i e s i n t h e case, and t h e p e r m i t r e q u i r e m e n t s . There is no merit to t h i s argument. Proof of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y is n o t r e q u i r e d i n a w r i t of mandamus a c t i o n and t h e amount of t i m e M r . Herron e s t i m a t e d as r e a s o n a b l e to p r e v a i l on t h e mandamus i s s u e was s u f f i c i e n t to allow t h e p a r t i e s to p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t o t h e o t h e r areas o f p r o o f . G u i d e l i n e s have been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s Court f o r d e t e r - mining r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s . " '"The c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r - mining t h e compensation to be recovered are t h e amount and c h a r a c t e r of t h e s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d , t h e l a b o r , t i m e and t r o u b l e i n v o l v e d , t h e c h a r a c t e r and importance of t h e l i t i g a t i o n i n which t h e s e r v i c e s were r e n d e r e d , t h e amount of money or t h e v a l u e of p r o p e r t y to be a f f e c t e d , t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l and e x p e r i e n c e c a l l e d f o r , t h e c h a r a c t e r and s t a n d i n g i n t h e i r pro- f e s s i o n of t h e a t t o r n e y s . . . The r e s u l t secured by t h e s e r v i c e s of t h e a t t o r n e y s may be con- s i d e r e d a s an i m p o r t a n t element i n determining t h e i r value."^" F i r s t S e c u r i t y Bank of Bozeman v . Tholkes ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 422, 429-430, 547 P.2d 1328, 1332. These g u i d e l i n e s were c o n s i d e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge when h e determined t h e rate p e r hour upon which to base t h e f e e award. W e f i n d no error w i t h e i t h e r t h e method used by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judge f o r d e t e r m i n i n g r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s o r w i t h t h e amount awarded. The second i s s u e d e a l s w i t h t h e d e n i a l of prejudgment i n t e r e s t on t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s . The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t t h e r e is no a u t h o r i t y i n Montana's s t a t u t e s o r c a s e law f o r t h e award of i n t e r e s t on a t t o r n e y f e e s p r i o r to judgment. The p l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d as a matter of l a w i n r e a c h i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . Two Montana s t a t u t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e a l w i t h t h e awarding o f i n t e r e s t t o p e r s o n s e n t i t l e d to r e c o v e r damages, s e c t i o n s 27-1-211 and 27-1-212, MCA. I n t h i s case t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s is an award of "damages" under s e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA. T h e r e f o r e it is n e c e s s a r y to d e t e r m i n e whether e i t h e r of t h e i n t e r e s t s t a t u t e s a u t h o r i z e s an award of prejudgment i n t e r e s t i n t h i s case. S e c t i o n 27-1-211, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "Every p e r s o n who is e n t i t l e d to r e c o v e r damages c e r t a i n o r c a p a b l e of being made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n and t h e r i g h t to r e c o v e r . . . is v e s t e d i n him upon a p a r t i c u l a r day is e n t i t l e d a l s o to r e c o v e r i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n from t h a t day 11 . . . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s case w a s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court and t h e amount w a s n o t d e f i n i t e or c a p a b l e of being c a l c u l a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y p r i o r to judgment. T h e r e f o r e t h i s s e c t i o n d o e s n o t p r o v i d e a u t h o r i t y f o r awarding prejudgment i n t e r e s t t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s . The o t h e r i n t e r e s t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 27-1-212, MCA, p r o v i d e s : " I n an a c t i o n f o r t h e breach of an o b l i g a t i o n n o t a r i s i n g from c o n t r a c t and i n e v e r y case of o p p r e s s i o n , f r a u d , or malice, i n t e r e s t may be g i v e n , i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e j u r y . . ." Without d e c i d i n g whether t h i s s t a t u t e a p p l i e s to cases i n which t h e judge r a t h e r than t h e j u r y d e t e r m i n e s t h e award of damages, w e f i n d t h a t i n any e v e n t t h i s s t a t u t e would n o t a u t h o r i z e an award of prejudgment i n t e r e s t . I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s s t a t u t e t h i s Court p r e v i o u s l y quoted w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e f o l l o w i n g language : " ' T h e r e is no a u t h o r i t y of law f o r t r e a t i n g t h e j u r y as c l o t h e d w i t h a double d i s c r e t i o n , - - a d i s c r e t i o n t o be e x e r c i s e d , f i r s t , i n f i x i n g t h e amount of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s damages, and t h e n i n augmenting t h a t amount by an a s s e s s m e n t , i n t h e n a t u r e of i n t e r e s t . . . lb add i n t e r e s t t o d i s c r e t i o n a r y damages is to m u l t i p l y u n c e r t a i n t y by c e r t a i n t y ; t h e i n d e f i n i t e by t h e d e f i n i t e ; a m i x t u r e of incongrous e l e m e n t s which s u b j e c t s o n e of t h e p a r t i e s to t h e burden, and g i v e s t h e o t h e r t h e b e n e f i t of b o t h k i n d s . " Daly v. S w i f t & Co. ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 90 Mont. 52, 67-68, 300 P. 265, 269. Based on t h i s r a t i o n a l e we conclude t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e does n o t a u t h o r i z e a d i s c r e t i o n a r y award of prejudgment i n t e r e s t i n t h i s c a s e s i n c e t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s is i t s e l f d i s c r e t i o n a r y . The p l a i n t i f f s n e x t argue t h a t a u t h o r i t y f o r awarding pre- judgment i n t e r e s t is found i n t h e mandamus s t a t u t e i t s e l f , sec- t i o n 27-26-402, MCA. P l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t prejudgment i n t e r e s t comes w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e term "damages". W e d i s a g r e e . I n t h i s case t h e p l a i n t i f f s e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t i n g e n t f e e agreement w i t h t h e i r a t t o r n e y s . N o a t t o r n e y f e e s were owing p r i o r to judgment. T h e r e f o r e t h e p l a i n t i f f s s u f f e r e d no d e t r i - ment i n t h e n a t u r e of prejudgment i n t e r e s t on a t t o r n e y f e e s s i n c e no prejudgment i n t e r e s t was owing. W e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court c o r r e c t l y concluded t h a t t h e r e is no a u t h o r i t y i n Montana f o r an award of prejudgment i n t e r e s t on t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y award of a t t o r n e y f e e s involved i n t h i s case. The t h i r d i s s u e is whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o award as "damages" under s e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA, cer- t a i n out-of-pocket l i t i g a t i o n expenses. With r e g a r d to t h i s i s s u e t h e District Court concluded t h a t t h e mandamus s t a t u t e does n o t contemplate t h e awarding of l i t i g a t i o n expenses n o t itemized i n t h e c o s t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA. W e f i n d error i n t h e District C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . S e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p r e v a i l i n g a p p l i c a n t f o r a w r i t of mandate may r e c o v e r damages as w e l l as c o s t s . I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e meaning of "damages" w e t u r n to sec- t i o n 27-1-202, MCA: "Every p e r s o n who s u f f e r s d e t r i m e n t from t h e u n l a w f u l act or omission of a n o t h e r may r e c o v e r from t h a t p e r s o n i n f a u l t a compensation t h e r e - f o r i n money, which is c a l l e d damages. " The term " d e t r i m e n t " is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 27-1-201, MCA: "Detriment is a loss or harm s u f f e r e d i n person or p r o p e r t y . " I n t h i s c a s e t h e p l a i n t i f f s were l i a b l e to t h e i r a t t o r n e y s under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e i r c o n t i n g e n t f e e agreement f o r a l l n e c e s s a r y l i t i g a t i o n expenses. I f S t a t e Lands had n o t i n c o r r e c t l y i s s u e d t h e p e r m i t to t h e Anaconda Company, t h e p l a i n - t i f f s would n o t have i n c u r r e d as expenses t h e l i t i g a t i o n expenses r e l a t e d t o t h e mandamus i s s u e upon which t h e y p r e v a i l e d . The d e t r i m e n t s u f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s w i t h r e g a r d to t h e s e l i t i g a - t i o n expenses was caused by S t a t e Lands1 f a i l u r e t o perform a c l e a r l e g a l duty. The p l a i n t i f f s are e n t i t l e d to be compensated f o r t h e r e a s o n a b l e l i t i g a t i o n expenses r e l a t e d to t h e mandamus i s s u e r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h o s e expenses are awardable as " c o s t s " w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA. The d e f e n d a n t s contend t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s should be p r e c l u d e d from claiming t h e l i t i g a t i o n expenses a s damages be- c a u s e t h o s e expenses were n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y prayed f o r i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . P r i o r t o t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure which became e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1962, t h i s argument would have been p e r s u a s i v e . See S t a t e v. District Court of E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 130 Mont. 65, 294 P.2d 903; S t a t e v. Ford ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 116 Mont. 190, 1 5 1 P.2d 171. However, such s p e c i f i c i t y of p l e a d i n g is n o t mandated under t h e new r u l e s . No t e c h n i c a l form o f p l e a d i n g is now r e q u i r e d . Rule 8 ( e ) (1), M.R.Civ.P. "The purpose of p l e a d i n g under t h e new r u l e s is t o p u t t h e c o u r t and t h e p a r t i e s on n o t i c e of t h e claim being made." Hodgson v. Hodgson ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 156 Mont. 469, 474, 482 P.2d 140, 142. I n t h i s case t h e d e f e n d a n t s had n o t i c e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s were b r i n g i n g a mandamus a c t i o n f o r which damages may be r e c o v e r e d . L i t i g a t i o n expenses a r e a n a t u r a l and n e c e s s a r y r e s u l t of such a n a c t i o n . The d e f e n d a n t s were n o t w i t h o u t n o t i c e t h a t such damages m i g h t r e s u l t i n t h i s case. There is a r e q u i r e m e n t under Rule 9 ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P., t h a t s p e c i a l damages must be s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d . However s i n c e t h e l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s were a n a t u r a l and n e c e s s a r y r e s u l t of t h e mandamus a c t i o n , t h e y are g e n e r a l damages and it was n o t n e c e s s a r y t o s p e c i f i c a l l y p r a y f o r them i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . " [ S l p e c i a l damages are t h e n a t u r a l b u t n o t n e c e s s a r y r e s u l t o f t h e wrong o r b r e a c h ; whereas g e n e r a l damages are damages t h e law would impute as t h e n a t u r a l , n e c e s s a r y and l o g i c a l consequence o f t h e wrong or b r e a c h ." P u r i n g t o n v. Sound West ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 106, 111-112, 566 P.2d 795. The District Court e r r e d i n n o t awarding a s damages t h o s e l i t i g a t i o n expenses i n c u r r e d as a r e s u l t of t h e mandamus a c t i o n which were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e award of costs. The l a s t i s s u e d e a l s w i t h t h e award of costs. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y concluded t h a t costs a r e to be awarded o n l y f o r t h e i t e m s s p e c i f i c a l l y enumerated i n s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA. T h i s Court h a s h e l d t h a t " t h e list of items [ i n s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA,] is e x c l u s i v e e x c e p t as to cases t a k e n o u t of its o p e r a t i o n by s p e c i a l s t a t u t e , b y s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , o r by r u l e o f c o u r t . " Roseneau Foods, I n c . v . Coleman ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 4 0 Mont. 572, 580, 374 P.2d 8 7 , 91. The p l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n n o t i n c l u d i n g c e r t a i n l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s as costs under s u b s e c t i o n ( 9 ) o f s e c t i o n 25-10-201, MCA, which p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p a r t y to whom c o s t s a r e awarded is e n t i t l e d to t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s t h a t are t a x a b l e a c c o r d i n g to t h e c o u r s e and p r a c t i c e of t h e c o u r t . There is nothing i n t h e r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e , however, t h a t l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s are t a x a b l e accord- i n g t o t h e c o u r s e and p r a c t i c e of t h e District Court. S i n c e no e r r o r a p p e a r s from t h e r e c o r d , t h e District C o u r t ' s award of costs must be upheld. T h i s case is remanded f o r a h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e r e a s o n a b l e l i t i g a t i o n expenses i n c u r r e d as a r e s u l t of t h e mandamus a c t i o n . Those l i t i g a t i o n expenses n o t included i n t h e award of costs a r e t o be included i n t h e award of damages under s e c t i o n 27-26-402, MCA. The remainder of t h e District C o u r t ' s j udgment is a £ f irmed . Chief J u s t i c e W e c o c u r : f r' " \,