NO. 92-516 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1993 

ROY BECKMAN, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vsJACK LACHER, d/b/a 

LACHER FARMS, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Roy Beckman, Pro Se, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Brian Bulger; Bulger Law Offices, Great 

Falls, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: May 13, 1993 

Decided: June 21, 1993 
Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court, 

Cascade County, the Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick presiding. Roy 

Beckman (Beckman) appeals from a jury verdict awarding him 

$3,872.94 for breach of an oral contract involving a crop-share 

lease in Cascade County, Montana. We affirm. 

Beckman presents numerous issues for review, butthe following 

two alone are dispositive. 

1. Whether substantial credible evidence supports the jury 

verdict. 

2. Whether the District Court erred in directing the verdict 

with regard to punitive damages. 

Beckman and respondent Jack Lacher (Lacher) entered into an 

oral agreement in May 1989. The agreement provided that Lacher 

would farm Beckman's property for Beckman and receive two-thirds of 

tkLe L- ------ L Ilalvrsc. Both parties are Earmers. Beckman is a gentleman 

well along in years and has a serious hearing problem. While he 

possesses a hearing aid, the record indicates that he does not wear 

it regularly. Much of the misunderstanding that occurred in this 

relationship was admittedly due to Beckman's hearing deficiency. 

The property involved here was farmed by a neighbor, Ron 

Robinson, until he died in 1989. Robinson also farmed for another 

neighbor, the Sears family, who negotiated with Lacher and 

Robinson's widow to have Lacher take over the farming of the Sears 

property. After Robinson died, Mrs. Robinson asked Lacher to spray 

and harvest her crop. 

In May 1989, Mrs. Robinson brought Lacher and Beckman 

2 
together, suggesting that Lacher farm Beckman's property. At this 

meeting, Beckman and Lacher completed about eighty percent of their 

oral agreement concerning the farming of the property. Mrs. 

Robinson witnessed the twenty percent that was left for argument, 

but she was unable to confirm what was said. Lacher asked Beckman 

to reduce the agreement to writing, but Beckman never did. 

From the onset, disagreements occurred concerning Lacher's 

farming methods. Lacher is a younger, scientific farmer who has a 

number of similar leases. He farms with modern equipment and is a 

thorough believer in the use of fertilizer in the dryland wheat 

country north of Great Falls. Beckman is an old-timer who did not 

go along with all the modern ideas of farming in that area. For 

instance, Beckman insisted that fertilizer be spread on the ground, 

not injected through the drills when the seeds were planted. 

During the seeding process Beckman insisted that Lacher use 

his drills, which were forty to fifty years old, rather than his 

own modern drills. When Lacher brought his modern equipment into 

the fields to do the drilling, Beckman stopped him and demanded 

that he use his old equipment, which had to be repaired. As a 

result, some two or three weeks passed between early September, 

1989, when Lacher brought his own equipment in, and the time he was 

finally able to get into the fields for drilling. Eventually the 

crop was "top-dressed" according to Beckman's specification, though 

Lacher, who had consulted an agronomist, believed that it would 

have been better for the crop if he had used a liquid form of 

nitrogen at the time of seeding. 
Not all of the winter wheat seeding was successful, and 

portions had to be reseeded with spring wheat. At Beckman's 

direction the property was seeded with seed wheat similar to that 

used previously on the property, which had been stored at the 

Robinsons' place. The seeded spring wheat was fertilized by Lacher 

but not in the manner specified by Beckman. 

After the fall 1989 seeding, Beckman wrote to Lacher 

indicating that he was terminating the lease, which was to have 

been for three years, but in the same letter stated that a written 

lease would follow. 

Beckman's crop was harvested in the summer of 1990. Lacher 

harvested a total of 5,736 bushels of spring wheat and winter wheat 

combined. This was harvested from 299.6 acres for an average yield 

of 19.1 bushels per acre. The record indicates that this average 

was above what Beckman had previously received from this acreage 

when he or a lessee had planted and harvested it. 

After the 1990 harvest, Lacher asked Beckman to settle up on 

the fertilizer, not including the fertilizer he had used on the 

spring wheat. Beckman refused to pay for his share even though 

Lacher testified that Beckman had not objected to fertilizing the 

crop. Beckman denied that he had ever agreed to pay for 

fertilizer. At harvest time Lacher placed the winter wheat in an 

elevator under his name and told Beckman that it would remain in 

the elevator until payment for the fertilizer was resolved. The 

spring wheat was stored in both Lacher's and Beckman's names. 

The elevator manager testified as to the amounts of grain 
Lacher delivered to the elevator and its average price. In 

addition he testified as to the average price of wheat at the time 

of delivery. He further testified that he had given all the grain 

tickets and information to Beckman several times after the dispute 

arose. He stated as did Lacher that Beckman was told he could sell 

his one-third of the spring wheat, but he had not done so by the 

time of the trial in August 1992. 

Beckman filed a complaint in December 1990, requesting an 

accounting, costs, and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000. 

The complaint alleged that Lacher had failed to farm Beckman's land 

in a "proper and farm-like manner;" that Lacher had failed to store 

the crop in his and Beckman's names; and that Lacher had somehow 

not delivered all the wheat to the elevator. These allegations 

were completely disproved by testimony from the elevator manager, 

Lacher's hired hand, who drove the grain trucks to the elevator, 

and Lacher himself. 

At trial, the only figures concerning the value of Beckman's 

share of the winter wheat and the seed wheat were provided by 

Lacher, who was called as an adverse witness. No conflicting 

evidence was produced by Beckman or his witnesses. Lacher offered 

to pay Beckman his share of the value of the winter wheat, plus 

interest; this amount, offset by one-third of the cost of the 

fertilizer, was what the jury awarded Beckman. 

During the trial, Lacher moved the court for a directed 

verdict on the punitive damages issue. As Beckman had failed to 

produce any evidence to support punitive damages, the court ruled 
in favor of Lacher. 

On appeal, Beckman argues that punitive damages were justified 

because Lacher sold his share of the winter wheat without his 

consent, keeping a portion of the proceeds to cover one-third of 

the cost of fertilizer. Beckman insisted at the trial and 

continues to insist that he receive the equivalent of his share of 

the winter wheat in wheat and not in cash, and that he never agreed 

to pay for one-third of the cost of fertilizer. Although these 

statements clearly reflect a difference of opinion between Lacher 

and Beckman, they do not constitute evidence of conversion or fraud 

by Lacher. The District Court did not err in granting Lacher's 

motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages. 

The transcript reveals that Beckman's counsel had considerable 

difficulty in presenting him as a witness, due to his impaired 

hearing and due to the fact that Beckman had very strong ideas of 

what he wanted to present, even though counsel seemed to advise him 

to the contrary. Counsel for Beckman at the time of the trial was 

the second counsel, Beckman having dismissed previous counsel, who 

had a lien against any judgment that Beckman might receive at this 

trial. 

In reviewing a jury verdict, this Court's function is to 

determine whether substantial credible evidence supports the 

verdict. Weinberg v. Farmers State Bank of Worden (1988), 231 

Mont. 10, 28, 752 P.2d 719, 730. This Court will not reverse a 

judgment based on a jury verdict when there is substantial evidence 

to support the verdict. Kleinsasser v. Superior Derrick Service, 
Inc. (l985), 218 Mont. 371, 708 P.2d 568. In examining the 

sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict, we review the 

evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. 

Weinberg, 752 P.2d at 730. 

In this case, substantial credible evidence supports the exact 

figures arrived at by the jury. These figures were placed on a 

blackboard by Beckman for the jury's consideration; they were the 

only figures ever presented to the jury. Beckman apparently agreed 

to these figures in cross-examination; at any rate, he provided no 

conflicting evidence. Nor, after the trial, did he move for a new 

trial or an amended verdict, possibly due to the fact that he fired 

his counsel immediately after the jury verdict. 

The jury awarded Beckman the sum of $5,000.44, representing 

one-third of the harvest delivered to the elevator at a price of 

$2.49 per bushel, as established by the testimony of the elevator 

manager. In addition it included prejudgment interest of ten 

percent from the time of delivery until the time of the trial, as 

was urged by Lacher. It also included 60.2 bushels of seed wheat 

at $3.80 a bushel, a figure which was undisputed at the time of the 

trial. This was the exact amount that Lacher's attorney proposed 

and that Beckman's attorney urged the jury to award Beckman. 

The jury also awarded Lacher $920.41, representing one-third 

of the cost of fertilizer, plus $207.41 for interest at ten percent 

from the time of delivery to the time of trial. Thus, the net 

award to Beckman was $3,872.94. 

We conclude that Beckman was awarded by a jury verdict the net 
value of exactly the amount of grain he was entitled to under the 

contract. In addition, he was awarded interest that he described 

as lfawfully generous." He got exactly what he bargained for. 

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decislon shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result 

to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. 

We concur: 
June 21, 1993 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

following named: 

Roy Beckman 

P. 0. Box 1955 

Great Falls, MT 59405 

Brian Bulger 

Bulger Law Offices 

410 Central Ave. 

Great Falls, MT 59401 

ED SMITH CiEIiii TiiE S-"jpRE'ME (33-"-RT 

STATE OF MONTANA