No. 89-348 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, as Receiver for the Montana 

Federal Savings Bank, f/k/a Montana Savings 

and Loan Association, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsDARWIN HAMILTON, MARY HAMILTON, et al., 

Defendants and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Flathead, 

The Honorable Michael Keedy, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Patrick M. Springer, Kalispell, Montana 

For Respondent : 

rt? c-: Debra D. Parker; Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn & Phillips, 

c3 :-> 

. . C-- Kalispell, Montana 

r-: , 1 <- 

I-{ II I -- 

Submitted on Briefs: Dec. 14, 1989 

Decided: February 15, 1990 
~ustice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This appeal arises from an order by the District Court, 

Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, Montana, granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals. We affirm. 

The issues presented for our review are: 

1. Did the Hamiltons present a timely appeal of the 

amended summary judgment? 

2. Whether this case should be remanded for a determination of the adequacy of the sales price of land sold at a 

sheriff's sale. 

Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Hamilton purchased property near 

Kalispell, Montana, in 1982, for development as a mobile home 

subdivision. The Hamiltons entered an agreement with the 

owners of the land, Mr. and Mrs. Long, to purchase the property for $250,000. The Longs took a mortgage on the land at 

this time. 

That same year Mr. Hamilton borrowed $175,000 from 

Montana Savings and Loan Association for development costs. 

To secure this loan he executed a promissory note on March 

16, 1982, and the Association also took a mortgage on the 

land. This promissory note stated that the note would come 

due on May 16, 1985. A year later, Mr. Hamilton borrowed an 

additional $44,000 from Montana Savings and Loan Association, 
which was used to purchase an additional seven acres adjoining the original property. He executed a promissory note for 

this amount, due May 16, 1985. At the same time he executed 

a deed of trust to the Association, naming it as beneficiary. 

On July 29, 1983, Mr. Hamilton executed a mortgage modification agreement and a promissory note for the additional 

amount of $144,000. Under this agreement, all three obligations were consolidated into an indebtedness in the amount of 

$359,000, secured by the mortgage. This agreement stated a 

due date of August 1, 1984, with a possible twelve month 

extension under certain conditions. The Hamiltons gave 

personal guarantees of each promissory note. The mortgage 

modification also contained an agreement whereby the Longs 

subordinated their interest in the property to the 

Association. 

Mr. Hamilton began subdividing the property into mobile 

home lots, calling the subdivision "Green Tree Meadows." 

Seventeen of these lots were sold to individual parties; 

however, the development of the subdivision was not completed 

by the end of 1985, and the Hamiltons had not satisfied their 

obligations with the Bank. 

Montana Savings and Loan Association became Montana 

Federal Savings Bank. On August 14, 1985, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) was appointed 

receiver for Montana Federal Savings Bank. On August 16, 
1985, the receiver closed the Savings Bank and began liquidating the assets. On August 28, 1986 FSLIC filed a complaint to foreclose against Darwin and Mary Hamilton, 

alleging that they were in default under the terms of the 

three promissory notes, the Mortgage, the Deed of Trust, and 

the Mortgage Modification Agreement. The complaint stated a 

total amount owing, including principal and interest through 

June 30, 1986, of $429,557. The Hamiltons did not dispute 

that they were in default under the terms of the notes. 

FSLIC moved for summary j.udgment on the issue of default, and moved for a deficiency judgment. On March 21, 

1989, in an amended order granting summary judgment, the 

court awarded FSLIC a decree of foreclosure, and a judgment 

against Darwin and Mary Hamilton, jointly and severally, in 

the amount of $564,600 (which sum included interest through 

February 15, 1989). The order also stated: 

In the event the proceeds of the sale are 

insufficient to pay the amounts due the Plaintiff, 

together with interest, costs and attorneys' fees, 

the Plaintiff shall have a deficiency judgment 

against the Defendants Darwin Hamilton and Mary 

Hamilton, jointly and severally, and shall have 

execution thereon. 

On April 24, 1989, the sheriff of Flathead County held a 

public sale of the property. FSLIC, the only bidder at the 

sale, purchased the property for $475,000. On May 16, 1989, 

a deficiency judgment was granted to FSLIC against the 
Hamiltons in the amount of $99,306. Notice of entry of 

deficiency judgment was filed on May 19, 1989. The Hamiltons 

filed this appeal on June 16, 1989. 

Did the Hamiltons present a timely appeal of the amended 

summary judgment? 

This case involves two final orders. The amended summary judgment was a final order, notice of which was entered 

March 24, 1989. This order granted FSLIC a deficiency judgment. The entry of a deficiency judgment in the amount of 

$99,306, was also a final order, notice of which was entered 

May 19, 1989. 

On appeal, Hamiltons contest both the propriety of the 

deficiency judgment and the amount of the deficiency judgment. The amount of the judgment will be discussed in Issue 

In contesting the propriety of the deficiency judgment, 

the Hamiltons are appealing the validity of the amended 

summary judgment. Pursuant to Rule 5, M.R.App.P., the Hamiltons had thirty days from the date of entry of judgment, 

which was March 24, 1989, in which to appeal this order. 

This appeal was filed June 16, 1989. We hold that the appeal 

of this issue was not timely and will not be discussed. 
Whether this case should be remanded for a determination 

of the adequacy of the sales price of land sold at a sheriff's sale. 

After the sheriff's sale, FSLIC filed a "Notice of 

Partial Satisfaction and Motion for Entry of Deficiency 

Judgment," requesting that the court grant FSLIC a deficiency 

judgment against defendants in the amount of $99,306. 

On May 16, 1989 the court granted this motion, stating: 

On motion of the Plaintiff, deficiency judgment is hereby granted against the defendants, 

Darwin Hamilton and Mary Hamilton jointly and 

severally in the amount of $99,306.00. 

In this issue we discuss only the above-mentioned order, 

which entered the amount of the deficiency judgment. The 

Hamiltons object to the amount of this judgment, by urging 

that the sale price of $475,000, obtained at the sheriff's 

sale, was grossly inadequate. They urge that the fair market 

value of this property upon the completion and sale of each 

lot, is approximately $1 million. They base this on the fact 

that 17 of 81 lots have been sold at prices ranging from 

$11,000 to $13,000. The Hamiltons urge that the present case 

be remanded to District Court for a determination of the fair 

market value of the property at the time of sale, relying on 

the recent case of Trustees of Wash.-Idaho-Mont. Carpenters 

Employers Retirement Trust Fund v. Galleria Partnership 
(Mont. 1989), 780 P.2d 608, 46 St.Rep. 1661. In 

Galleria Partnership a piece of real property was bid in at 

the sheriff's sale for approximately 30% of its original 

appraised value. Although the issue of the adequacy of the 

sale price had not been raised in the lower court, we remanded to District Court for a determination of fair market 

value. We remanded "in the exercise of our equity jurisdiction." Galleria Partnership, 780 P.2d at 617. 

In the present case, however, the Hamiltons' request 

must fail. First, as FSLIC correctly notes, the Hamiltons 

did not petition the District Court in regard to the adequacy 

of the sales price. We acknowledge that an issue not pre-- 

sented to the District Court will not be addressed on appeal. 

Wyman v. DuBray Land Realty (Mont. 1988), 752 P.2d 196, 200, 

45 St.Rep. 621, 625. In view of Galleria Partnership we will 

consider this matter in order that litigation will be 

terminated. 

Although several states have statutes requiring that the 

amount realized at a sheriff's sale must reflect the fair 

market value of the property, Montana statutes have no such 

requirement. See Galleria Partnership, 780 P.2d at 616-17. 

Further, in the present case defendants failed to submit any 

relevant evidence of fair market value on the date of sale. 

There is a total absence of facts demonstrating that $475,000 

was not a fair price. We note that the face amount of the 
original obligation was $359,000. The purchase price bid by 

the receiver in the amount of $475,000 substantially exceeded 

that of the original obligation, even though it was less than 

the total judgment of $564,000. We conclude that the Hamiltons have failed to present any evidence requiring an exercise of our equity jurisdiction. 

We conclude that Galleria Partnership is distinguishable 

from the present case. We affirm the District Court's granting of the deficiency judgment. 

Affirmed. 

We Cmcur: /