Title: EDWARDS v PEAVEY COMPANY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13117 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1976 WILLIAM ROBERT E D T J A R D S and BARBARA E D W A R D S , husband and wife, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, PEAVEY C O M P A N Y , a corpora t i o n , Defendants, and ROY VAESSEN, Intervenor, Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana Joseph B. Gary argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Drysdale, Mckan & Scully, Bozeman, Montana James McLean argued, Bozeman, Montana Holter, Heath and Kirwan, Bozernan, Montana Submitted: March 10, 1976 Decided : MkY 19 1976 Filed : ; 3 1976 . ' I I . . L C e r e 5 . U a l y l e l ~ v e ~ e d -he J ~ I . Z I ~ U I I 31 C L I ~ L O C L L . ~ . r h i s is an appeal from a f i n a l ,judgment i n a c o n t r a c t ~ L L L O L I ~ t ~ l l , ~ r u i n g t h e terms of a farm l e a s e i n favor of Roy \,/adssen, I-espondent, by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, ludge W. W. Lessley presiding. O n August 10, 1972, p l a i n t i f f s William and Barbara Yuwards, husband and wife, ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s Edwards) ~ ~ r c h a s e d a farm southwest of Bozeman, Montana, from one John "asha. Edwards decided t o l e a s e t h e farm on a crop sharing nrrangement t o t h e intervenor i n t h i s m a t t e r , Roy Vaessen. The q e r t i n e n t terms of t h e l e a s e a r e : he t e r m of t h i s l e a s e and agreement s h a l l extend from November 1, 1972, and continue f o r t h r e e (3) crop years t h e r e a f t e r , and s h a l l rerminate on November 1, 1975. "Subject t o t h e foregoing r e s e r v a t i o n , t h e Lessors do hereby agree t h a t t h e Lessee s h a l l have posses- s i o n of t h e premises herein described on November 1, 1972, and t h a t t h e Lessee s h a l l during t h e t e r m af t h i s l e a s e , farm t h e lands h e r e i n described i n a good and farmer-like manner, and, a s r e n t a l f o r !:he use of s a i d lands it i s agreed t h a t t h e Lessors s h a l l r e c e i v e an undivided one-third (1/3) of a l l grain crops harvested upon t h e above-described lands during t h e years 1973, 1974 and 1975 and t h a t t h e Lessee s h a l l r e c e i v e an undivided two-thirds (213) ~f s a i d g r a i n crops during t h e year 1972 and t h e r e - ~ f t e r throughout t h e term of t h i s l e a s e . 1 1 The terms o f t h e farm s a l e agreement between seller ?asha and Suyer Edwards provided t h a t Edwards would provide winter wheat seed and Pasha would p l a n t during t h e f a l l 1972. This was done around October 20 t o 23, 1972. Vaessen a s s i s t e d w i ~ h t h e p l a n t i n g and a l s o with t h e h a r v e s t i n 1973. Edwards t e s t i f i e d t h e value of t h e crop harvested i n 1973 was $18,569. Edwards claims t h e e n t i r e 1973 wheat crop and Vaessen clai111s entitlement t o two-thirds of a l l 1973 g r a i n crops, including t h e 1973 winter wheat crop, less t h e expense of seed and harvesting which a r e t o be paid by Vaessen, under t h e terms of h i s l e a s e . 3 1 1 .luly 11, L974, 9dwards r i l e d 2 ~ d m p l a i r i t s c a r i n g f:hdt during t h e months 2f Oc tober-November, 1-973 Edwards had delivered t o defendant Peavey Company a g r a i n crop and t h a t i n e a r l y 1974 Edwards d i r e c t e d Peavey Company t o s e l l t h e g r a i n . The complaint a l l e g e d Peavey Company sold t h e g r a i n but wrong- r u l l y r e t a i n e d a portion of t h e proceeds of t h e s a l e . The ~ m p l a i n t prayed f o r t h e amount held by Peavey, $4,266.07, plus i-ncerest . Roy Vaessen f i l e d a motion t o intervene a s defendant, i.~~unterclaimant and crossclaimant under Rule 24, M.R.Civ.P., which was granted by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . I n h i s answer, counter- claim and crossclaim Vaessen a s s e r t e d t h e money held by Peavey Corllpany c o n s t i t u t e d ~ a e s s e n ' s share of t h e 1973 g r a i n crop and heref fore it w a s owed t o him r a t h e r than t o Edwards. Defendant :'eavey Company answered by admitting i t held t h e money, b u t t h a t i c was owed t o Peavey by both Edwards and Vaessen. Edwards and Vaessen f i l e d answers denying Peavey's counterclaims. T r i a l was held without a j u r y on ?.larch 31, 1975. P r i o r t o t r i a l , Peavey Company moved t o amend i t s counterclaims a g a i n s t TSdwards and Vaessen by withdrawing t h e counterclaims s u b j e c t t o a w r i t t e n s t i p u l a t i o n ; t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o ordered. The s t i p u l a - cion provided (1) t h a t Peavey s t o r e d a c e r t a i n portion o f w i n t e r wheat and t h a t i t was holding it pending t h e outcome of t h e t r i a l ; (2) t h a t Edwards owed nothing t o Peavey b u t Vaessen owed Peavey $1,300.85; (3) t h a t Peavey need n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e t r i a l . The c o u r t made f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law which included: a ) Pursuant t o t h e terms of t h e lease, intervenor Roy Vaessen was t o r e c e i v e an undivided two-thirds of t h e g r a i n crops harvested f o r t h e years 1973, 1974 and 1975, and p l a i n t i f f was t o r e c e i v e one-third of t h e g r a i n crops harvested during t h e s a i d years. b) The farm l e a s e and agreement was d r a f t e d by ~ d w a r d s ' a t t o r n e y and during the n e g o t i a t i o n leading up t o t h e d r a f t i n g of t h e farm l e a s e , t h e Edwards had t h e counsel and advice of t h e i r banker, accountant, and a t t o r n e y . C) That t h e farm l e a s e i s not ambiguous and c o n t a i n s a l l t h e agreements made between t h e p a r t i e s . d) That intervenor Roy Vaessen has on h i s p a r t duly performed a l l t h e terms and conditions of t h e l e a s e agreement by him t o be performed and cared f o r and harvested t h e 1973 g r a i n drops except t h a t Edwards paid f o r t h e c o s t s of t h e w i n t e r wheat seed and a portion of t h e c o s t s of swathing and harvesting t h e winter wheat crop, a l l of which i n accordance with t h e terms o f t h e agreement should have been paid f o r by intervenor Roy Vaessen. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t l i s t e d t h e expenses t o a t o t a l of $2,051. e ) That t h e proceeds from t h e s a l e of t h e 1973 w i n t e r whedt crop i s t h e sum of $18,635.07. f ) That by t h e terms of t h e l e a s e , intervenor Roy Vaessen i s e n t i t l e d t o two-thirds of t h e proceeds i n t h e sum o f $12,423.37, less t h e expenses paid by Edwards, which pursuant t o t h e l e a s e w e r e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e intervenor Roy Vaessen i n r h e sum of $2,951 f o r a n e t t o t a l owed t o Roy Vaessen by Edwards i n t h e sum of $10,372.37. g) The c o u r t found Peavey Company e n t i t l e d t o $1,300.85 of t h e $4,363.94 he'd by i t and owed by intervenor Vaessen. That Vaessen was e n t i t l e d t o t h e $4,363.94 held by Peavey Company, which w i l l be a c r e d i t a g a i n s t t h e $10,372.37 owed intervenor by Edwards. h) Under t h e t e r m s o f t h e l e a s e , i n t h e event of l e g a l proceedings, t h e l o s i n g p a r t y s h a l l pay t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o u r t c o s t s . a t t o r n e y f e e s I n i t s judgment t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t assessed $750/plus i n t e r e s t and c o s t s a g a i n s t Edwards. Judgment was entered i n conformity with t h e c o u r t ' s findings 9f f a c t and conclusions of law. From t h a t judgment Edwards appeals. Edwards looks t o t h i s language i n t h e farm l e a s e : "ik 9 : 9 ; Lessee s h a l l receive an undivided two- t h i r d s (213) of s a i d grain crops during t h e year 1972 and t h e r e a f t e r throughout t h e term of t h i s lease. 7 1 Edwards claims t h a t because n e i t h e r party i s e n t i t l e d t o any crops harvested .- i n 1972 (those crops belong t o John Pasha, t h e previous owner) t h i s c r e a t e s an uncertainty a s t o t h e ownership of the winter wheat planted i n 1972 and harvested i n 1973. Edwards claims t h i s alleged uncertainty of ownership of t h e winter wheat crop harvested i n 1973 has been resolved by t h e subsequent conduct of t h e p a r t i e s . He points t o t h e f a c t s (1) t h a t the seed and sub- quent harvesting of t h a t crop were paid f o r by Edwards, and (2) t h a t Vaessen delivered t h e winter wheat t o Peavey Company and stored i t i n Edwards' name alone, indicating t h a t both Edwards and Vaessen intended Edwards t o have complete ownership of the 1973 winter wheat crop. These two f a c t s a r e contrary t o t h e l e a s e b u t they do not c l e a r l y evidence a d e s i r e t o remake t h e s t a t e d provisions i n t h e contract. Any c o n t r a c t , however made o r evidenced, can be d i s - charged o r modified by subsequent agreement of the p a r t i e s . The subsequent agreement, however, must i t s e l f comply with t h e re- quirements of a c o n t r a c t , The antecedent agreement i s not discharged by a l a t e r agreement t h a t i s void f o r lack of consideration. Power Service Corporation v. J o s l i n , 175 F.2d 698. Under t h e terms of t h e l e a s e Vaessen i s e n t i t l e d t o two-thirds of a l l g r a i n crops harvested i n 1973. To have him remake t h a t portion of the l e a s e would r e q u i r e adequate consideration. W e f i n d no consideration i n t h e record t o support t h e claimed change i n t h e l e a s e agreement. Edwards claims t h a t Vaessen could have two-thirds of a winter wheat crop planted i n 1975 and harvested i n 1976 --- i n place of t h e two-thirds of t h e 1973 crop. Again, t h e r e i s no provision i n the contract t h a t would allow Vaessen t o claim any p a r t of the 1976 harvest. It might very w e l l be t h a t t h e use of t h e year 1972 i n t h e quoted phrase from t h e farm l e a s e was not intended, but it does not make t h e whole contract ambiguous. The i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s i s c l e a r . 17 Am J u r 2d, Contracts $242, s t a t e s : I l It i s a fundamental p r i n c i p l e t h a t a court may not made a new c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p a r t i e s o r r e w r i t e t h e i r contract under t h e guise of construction. * * It must be construed and enforced according t o t h e terms employed, and a court has no r i g h t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e agreement a s meaning something d i f f e r e n t from what t h e p a r t i e s intended a s expressed by the language they saw f i t t o employ. I I This w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e was enunciated i n Bullard v. Smith, 28 Mont. 387, 399, 72 P. 761, where t h e Court s a i d : "If i t [a contract ] i s p l a i n and unambiguous, i t needs no construction, and i t i s the duty of the court t o enforce the contract a s made by the p a r t i e s . I I See a l s o : Sections 13-704,. 13-705, R.C.M. 1947. The decision of t h e d i s t r i c t court gave t o t h e p a r t i e s exactly what they bargained f o r i n t h e farm lease. Vaessen received two-thirds of a l l grain crops harvested i n t h e years 1973, 1974, and 1975; he was assessed the expense of seed and harvesting f o r those crops. Edwards received one-third of a l l g r a i n crops harvested i n those years and bore no expenses f o r those crops. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. The respondent Vaessen i s awarded t h e sum of $750 a s a t t o r n e y fees on the appeal i n addition t o h i s c o s t s . W e Concur: J u s t i c e J u s t i c e s Y Hone Arthur * Martin. D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t c i n g f o r chief J u s t i c e T - . . . . . " n- Ue*-:",.- - I -