Title: LOVELY LAUBACH v BURROUGHS CORP

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13215 'IN T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1976 ORVIS C. L O V E L Y and D O N A L D R. LAUBACH, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -vs - R U R R O U G H S CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles B.Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Josephson and Fredricks, Big Timber, Montana Conrad B. Fredricks argued, Big Timber, Montana For Respondent: Henson and Tully, Minneapolis, Minnesota Robert Henson argued, Minneapolis, Minnesota Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana Joseph B . Gary appeared, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: March 1, 1976 ~ e c ided : ~ P H 4 1 9 7 6 Filed : APK 3 - '91b M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by p l a i n t i f f s from t h e a c t i o n taken by t h e d i s t r i c t , Park County, pursuant t o our e a r l i e r opinion and remand i n Lovely and Laubach v. Burroughs Corporation, 165 Mont. 209, 527 P.2d 557, 31 St.Rep. 824. Following remand t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t held a f u r t h e r hear- ing and received a d d i t i o n a l evidence concerning one i t e m of damages, v i z . p l a i n t i f f s ' l o s s on t h e sale of t h e i r Livingston accounting p r a c t i c e . Thereafter t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered t h e following: "ADDITIONAL FINDINGS O F FACT AND J U D G M E N T "This cause was remanded by t h e Montana Supreme Court on October 21, 1974, with d i r e c t i o n s t o reconsider Finding of Fact No. 13 and t h e i t e m of 'Loss of s a l e of Livingston business' contained i n paragraph 4 of t h e Conclusions of Law, and a l s o t o consider t h e Motion t o Re-tax Costs. "On A p r i l 4 , 1975, t h e Court heard f u r t h e r testimony on t h e i t e m of damages. Evidence upon t h e p a r t of t h e p l a i n t i f f reaches a high of $48,966.00, and evidence on t h e p a r t of t h e defendant reaches a low of $17,398.00. N o convincing reasons appear t o t h e Court t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r sale w a s a forced sale and furthermore t h e Court is n o t o v e r l y convinced with t h e testimony of e i t h e r s i d e considering t h i s i t e m of damages, t h e r e f o r e , "IT IS ORDERED t h e o r i g i n a l Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law should stand a s o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d . "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t h a t t h e i t e m i n p l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum of Costs t o t a l i n q $603.28 be reduced and allowed i n t h e amount of $117.18. "Each p a r t y t o bear t h e i r own c o s t s on t h i s appeal. "Dated t h i s 4 t h day of Aug.ust, 1975." P l a i n t i f f s now appeal from t h i s determination and from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o amend it i n conformity with p l a i n t i f f s ' request. P l a i n t i f f s l i s t t h e following i s s u e s f o r review i n t h e i r appeal which w e w i l l summarize a s follows: (1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n receiving a d d i t i o n a l evidence following remand? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n f i x i n g t h e amount of damages f o r t h e l o s s on t h e s a l e of t h e Livingston accounting business of p l a i n t i f f s ? (3) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n taxing t h e c o s t s of t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e hearing following remand a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f s ? W e hold t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t commit e r r o r i n hold- ing a f u r t h e r hearing and receiving a d d i t i o n a l evidence over t h e o b j e c t i o n s of p l a i n t i f f s concerning t h e l o s s on t h e sale of p l a i n t i f f s ' Livingston accounting p r a c t i c e . This matter w a s l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n our opinion ordering remand. W e simply remanded " * * * f o r a redetermination of t h e amount of damages a r i s i n g from t h e l o s s on t h e s a l e of t h e Living- ston business" without d i r e c t i o n o r r e s t r i c t i o n on t h e method t o be u t i l i z e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Where a c a s e is remanded under such circumstances, it i s f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o determine i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n whether t h e record before it is s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h i s purpose o r whether a d d i t i o n a l evidence should be taken t o supple- ment t h e record. S Creek Ranch, Inc., a corporation v. Monier & Company, W y o . , 518 P.2d 930; Sokel v. Nickoli, 356 Mich. 460, 97 N.W.2d 1; F u l l e r t o n Lumber Co. v. Torborg, 274 W i s c . 478, 80 N.W.2d 461. W e f u r t h e r hold t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d a second t i m e i n f i x i n g t h e amount of p l a i n t i f f s ' damages f o r t h e i r l o s s on t h e sale of t h e i r accounting business i n Livingston. A t t h e o r i g i n a l t r i a l t h e only testimony on t h i s i t e m of damages w a s t h a t of M r . Pyfer who fixed t h e range of damages between $28,801 and $48,960. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t fixed t h e damages on t h i s i t e m a t $3,268. W e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r redetermination of t h i s i t e m of damages. Lovely & Laubach v. Burroughs Corpor- a t i o n , supra. Upon remand t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t held another hearing t o determine t h i s item of damages. A t t h i s hearing t h r e e e x p e r t witnesses on t h e v a l u a t i o n of an accounting p r a c t i c e t e s t i f i e d . M r . P y f e r ' s testimony was s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s he gave a t t h e t r i a l . M r . Broeker's testimony, i n essence, w a s t h a t t h e buyer of p l a i n t i f f s ' Livingston accounting p r a c t i c e paid $1,352 more than i t s value so p l a i n t i f f s ' suffered no dam- age on t h e sale. M r . Anderson's testimony w a s t h a t t h e s a l e p r i c e was about r i g h t s o p l a i n t i f f s suffered no damage on t h e sale of t h e i r accounting p r a c t i c e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t thereupon held t h a t its o r i g i n a l determination of t h i s item of damages a t $3,268 should stand. This is incredible! The d i s t r i c t c o u r t fixed t h e damages i n an i d e n t i c a l amount down t o t h e last d o l l a r on t h e b a s i s of two d i f f e r e n t records. The amount of damages was o u t s i d e t h e range of any testimony o r evidence. There is simply nothing i n t h e record e i t h e r a t t h e t r i a l o r i n t h e subsequent hearing t h a t supports an award of $3,268 f o r p l a i n t i f f s ' l o s s on t h e sale of t h e i r Livingston accounting p r a c t i c e . Accordingly w e vacate t h e "ADDITIONAL FINDINGS O F FACT AND JUDGMENT" of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t dated August 4 , 1975. W e remand again t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r prompt determination of damages f o r p l a i n t i f f s ' l o s s on t h e s a l e of t h e i r Livingston accounting p r a c t i c e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t is d i r e c t e d t o make t h i s determination on t h e b a s i s of t h e record p r e s e n t l y before it without a d d i t i o n a l hearing o r r e c e p t i o n of f u r t h e r evidence. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t is f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d t h a t a f t e r determining t h i s i t e m of damages within t h e range of t h e evidence, t o r e t a x c o s t s accordingly, and e n t e r judgment i n conformity with t h i s opinion and our previous opinion i n t h i s cause. J u s t i c e - 4 - s i t t i n g i n place of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison.