DA 12-0031

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2012 MT 195

ANTHONY F. VARANO,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

MICHEAL HICKS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Lincoln, Cause No. DV 11-280

Honorable James B. Wheelis, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Micheal Hicks (Self-Represented), Eureka, Montana

For Appellee:

(No Appellee Brief filed.)

Submitted on Briefs: June 27, 2012

 Decided: September 5, 2012

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk 

September 5 2012
2

Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Micheal Hicks appeals the Nineteenth Judicial District Court’s order awarding 

damages in the amount of $616.33 plus costs to Anthony Varano. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 The dispute between Varano and Hicks arose following a snowmobiling trip in 

Lincoln County. Varano allowed Hicks to borrow his snowmobile. The parties dispute 

the events that occurred during their outing.

¶3 On March 29, 2011, Varano filed a complaint in Lincoln County Justice Court 

alleging that Hicks caused $2,681.58 in damage to his snowmobile. A bench trial was 

held on October 26, 2011. The Justice Court determined that Hicks agreed to pay Varano 

for the gasoline and oil he used. Since the snowmobile trip took place more than two 

years prior to the case being heard, and the only evidence of the alleged damage was an 

estimate for repairs dated a year after the incident in question, the Justice Court declined 

to award any sum to compensate Varano for damages to the snowmobile. The Justice 

Court awarded Varano the gasoline and oil costs and his court costs. Varano appealed 

the Justice Court’s decision.

¶4 The Nineteenth Judicial District Court held a bench trial on December 28, 2011. 

Both parties represented themselves at trial. Both parties testified and were questioned 

by the judge. Varano testified that when Hicks borrowed his snowmobile, Hicks agreed 

to fix any damage he caused while using it. Varano further testified that Hicks drove the 

snowmobile off the road and hit a tree. Following the accident, Varano requested $500 to 

cover the damages. According to Varano, Hicks agreed to pay the $500, but then left 
3

town and avoided payment. Hicks testified that he only agreed to pay Varano $25 to 

cover gasoline, but Varano demanded more and more money when no payment was 

made. Hicks eventually took out a restraining order to prevent Varano from approaching 

him and demanding payment.

¶5 On January 4, 2012, the District Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 

Law, and Order. The District Court determined that Varano had loaned his snowmobile 

to Hicks on the condition that Hicks would pay for the cost of gasoline and would be 

responsible for any potential costs of repair. The District Court found that Hicks 

damaged the snowmobile by running it off an embankment. The District Court 

concluded that after agreeing to the sum of $500 for the repairs, Hicks failed to pay the 

agreed-upon amount and had not paid for gasoline or oil. Neither party presented

testimony by a qualified mechanic that would have allowed the District Court to 

determine the amount of damages or the cause of the damages. Based on its findings, the 

District Court ordered Hicks to pay the $500 pursuant to the oral contract, $116.33 as the 

reasonable cost of gasoline and oil consumed during the outing, and the costs of the 

lawsuit. Hicks appeals.

ISSUE

¶6 A restatement of the issue on appeal is whether the District Court’s decision on the 

judgment amount and the existence of an enforceable contract between the parties was 

based on sufficient evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
4

¶7 We review the findings of fact of a trial court sitting without a jury to determine if 

the court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Olsen v. Milner, 2012 MT 88, ¶ 16, 364 Mont. 

523, 276 P.3d 934. A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by 

substantial evidence, if the trier of fact misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if a 

review of the record leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction that 

a mistake has been made. Micone v. Dep’t of Pub. HHS, 2011 MT 178, ¶ 10, 361 Mont. 

258, 258 P.3d 403. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing 

party when determining whether substantial credible evidence supports the district court’s 

findings. Eldredge v. Asarco Inc., 2011 MT 80, ¶ 30, 360 Mont. 112, 252 P.3d 182. We 

review for correctness a district court’s conclusions of law. Id.

DISCUSSION

¶8 This matter comes before us solely on the brief of Appellant Hicks. Hicks asserts 

on appeal that Varano presented insufficient evidence to support the District Court’s 

findings and judgment. Hicks further argues that the District Court’s findings are not 

supported by the trial testimony. Specifically, he denies the existence of an enforceable 

agreement between the parties and contends that the judgment amount is unsubstantiated. 

¶9 Reviewing the record in this case and considering the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party, we conclude that the District Court properly considered 

the conflicting testimony of the parties and acted within its province in finding the 

testimony of Varano more credible. It is manifest on the record that the District Court’s 

findings of fact are not clearly erroneous nor are its conclusions based on those findings 

incorrect. Hicks admitted to driving the snowmobile off an embankment, and the 
5

testimony of Varano established the existence of the contract to settle the resulting 

damages for $500. The judgment amount was reasonably supported by the testimony. 

We will not disturb on appeal a district court’s determination of witness credibility as this 

determination rests exclusively within the province of the finder of fact. Hendricks v. 

State, 2006 MT 22, ¶ 16, 331 Mont. 47, 128 P.3d 1017. 

¶10 The District Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and the 

legal issues are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly 

interpreted.

¶11 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ JIM RICE

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS