No. 91-126 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

JOEL V. BALLENGER, 

Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, and Appellant, 

-vsNORTHERN LIGHTS, INC., 

Defendant, Counter-Claimant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District court of the Twentieth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Sanders, 

The Honorable C. B. McNeil, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Claude I. Burlingame, Attorney at Law, Thompson 

Falls, Montana: John D. Greef, Attorney at Law, 

Hamilton, Montana. 

For Respondent: 

Gary R. Christiansen: Warden, Christiansen, Johnson 

& Berg, Kalispell, Montana. 

a' . . i ..,- .#i 

AUG 15 1991 Submitted on briefs: July 16, 1991 

' Clerk 
Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Joel Ballenger appeals from an order of summary judgment 

granted by the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, 

Sanders County, in favor of defendant, Northern Lights, Inc. The 

District Court held that Northern Lights owed no duty to Ballenger 

to provide electricity for his irrigation pumps. We affirm. 

The sole issue on appeal is: 

Whether the District Court erred in determining that Northern 

Lights had no duty to provide electricity for Ballenger's 

irrigation pumps. 

Joel Ballenger has been a farmer-rancher in Sanders County, 

Montana, for over 30 years. The area where Ballenger lives is 

provided electricity solely by Northern Lights, an electric 

cooperative. Northern Lights has its office in Sandpoint, Idaho, 

and it serves an area comprising portions of western Montana and 

northern Idaho. 

Ballenger has four separate accounts with Northern Lights. 

Two accounts represent his residential electricity consumption and 

the other two involve electricity utilized by his irrigation pumps. 

When Ballenger set up the accounts for his irrigation pumps, 

he entered into a "Service Order and Membership Application" that 

stated that no electricity would be provided until he paid all past 

due balances. At the end of the 1984 irrigation season, Ballenger 

owed $3,737.50 for services rendered in 1982, 1983, and 1984 by 

Northern Lights. Although he obtained an operating loan, he chose 

not to use any of these funds to pay the past due balance. 

2 
In 1985, Montana experienced a severe drought. On July 8, 

1985, Ballenger contacted Northern Lights and informed them that 

he needed power immediately so that he could irrigate his crops. 

When Northern Lights refused, he offered a partial cash payment of 

$2,000 and a lien on his crops. Northern Lights continued in its 

refusal to provide power, and Ballenger's crops failed for lack of 

water. 

Ballenger filed a lawsuit alleging that Northern Lights 

unreasonably refused to energize his irrigation pumps and sought 

damages for his lost crop. Northern Lights counterclaimed, seeking 

payment on the balance due on Ballenger's account. On December 17, 

1990, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of 

Northern Lights. Ballenger appeals that portion of the court's 

order which dismissed his claim for damages to his crops. 

Ballenger maintains that the District Court erred in granting 

summary judgment. We disagree. 

Summary judgment is proper under Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., when 

the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any fact 

deemed material in light of the substantive legal principles 

entitling the movant to judgment as a matter of law. A1 1 

reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the party opposing 

the motion. In making its determination on whether to grant a 

motion for summary judgment, the court must consider the entire 

record. Smith v. Barrett (1990), 242 Mont. 37, 40, 788 P.2d 324, 

326. There are no issues of material fact involved here. 

3 
As stated above, Ballenger entered into a "Service Order and 

Membership Application" when he set up the accounts for his 

irrigation pumps. This contractual instrument provided, and 

Ballenger agreed, that the Cooperative would not provide 

electricity if he had balances owing on his irrigation accounts. 

Ballenger maintains that this explicit provision was modified by 

a separate document which is referred to as Member Service Policy 

No. 402. This document provided that Northern Lights may allow 

time to pay bills in installments when special circumstances arise 

"such as: death in the family, serious illness, life sustaining 

equipment, the elderly and the handicapped." This provision, 

according to Ballenger, should have been applied to his case and 

he should have been allowed to pay his balance in installments. 

Ballenger relies upon Howe v. Big Horn Electric Cooperative 

(1983), 206 Mont. 297, 670 P.2d 936, to support this argument. The 

adoption and implementation of all rules must be done fairly and 

in a reasonable manner with proper regard for the rights of the 

member and his property. w, 670 P.2d at 938. 

Relying on this case, Ballenger argues that Northern Lights 

unreasonably refused to apply Member Service Policy No. 402 to his 

special circumstances. He maintains that the Cooperative, in 

accordance with its duty to act reasonably, should have accepted 

his offer of partial payment and a lien on his crops. 

We disagree. From the depositions it is clear that Member 

Service Policy No. 402 applied only to residential accounts and 

never to irrigation accounts. 

4 
Second, as the District Court found, and as is clearly stated 

in m, the policy of Northern Lights allowing disconnection of 

service for nonpayment of fees was reasonable. See, m, 670 P.2d 

at 938. Moreover, Northern Lights' implementation of this policy 

under these circumstances was reasonable. Ballenger was over three 

years overdue on his account. Despite opportunities to pay off the 

balance, Ballenger chose not to do so. Instead, he chose to gamble 

on the fact that he would not need to irrigate in 1985. When it 

became clear that he would have to irrigate, he attempted to enter 

into a deal with Northern Lights, offering them a lien on his 

crops. He has presented no authority that requires a cooperative 

to accept a crop lien as security. Under these agreed facts, 

Northern Lights simply had no duty to extend further credit to an 

overdue delinquent account. 

Finally, Ballenger argues that at the time he asked the 

Cooperative to supply electricity to his accounts, he had $1,914.90 

worth of capital credits. There is no evidence, however, that he 

offered those credits at that time or that they were discussed. 

Therefore, we do not consider the existence of those credits in our 

determination. 

In short, we find the only substantive legal issue provided 

by this case is whether Northern Lights reasonably refused to 

provide power to Ballenger's pumps. In light of the clear 

contractual language contained in the Service Order and Membership 

Application, and the agreed facts, the only conclusion which can 

5 
be reached is that such action was reasonable. Summary judgment 

under Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., was properly granted. 

Af f inned. 

* Justice / 

We Concur: ,/ n 

6 
August 15, 1991 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

Claude I. Burlingame and John D. Greef 

Attorneys at Law 

P.O. Box 9 

Thompson Falls, MT 59873 

Gary R. Christiansen 

Warden, Christiansen, Johnson & Berg 

P.O. Box 3038 

Kalispell, MT 59903-3038 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA