No. 86-33 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

RICHARD WILLOUGHBY and COLLEEN 

WILLOUGHBY, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

DON SWEENY, HUGH SPRAGGINS, and 

A-1 MUFFLER, 

Defendants and Respondents. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Thomas Olson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Vainio & Ramler; Richard A. Ramler, Belgrade, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Morrow, Sedivy & Bennett; Lyman H. Bennett, 111, 

Bozeman, Montana 

Nash & Wellcome; Page Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana 

Filed : 

Submitted on Briefs: May 9, 1986 

Decided: July 8, 1986 

Jut 8 - 1986 

& 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court 

for Gallatin County. The Willoughbys brought suit for loss 

of use of their pickup truck, and defendant Mr. Spraggins 

counterclaimed for the value of repair services performed on 

the truck. After a bench trial, the court ordered that the 

Willoughbys take nothing by virtue of their complaint and 

that Mr. Spraggins take nothing by virtue of his counterclaim. We affirm. 

The issue is whether the District Court's conclusion 

that "the defendants did not wrongfully deprive plaintiffs of 

their vehicle" is supported by the findings of fact and the 

law of Montana. 

After hearing the evidence, the District Court made 

lengthy findings of fact, which are not disputed. It found 

that Mr. Spraggins repaired the transmission of the 

Willoughby's 1973 pickup truck in July of 1983, at his business, A-1 Muffler. The total cost of the repairs was 

$367.60. The Willoughbys and Mr. Spraggins agreed that the 

repair bill would be paid off on a weekly basis, and Mr. 

Spraggins voluntarily released the truck to the Willoughbys. 

No payments were ever made. 

Two months later, the Willoughbys experienced electrical 

problems with the truck. They took it to defendant Don 

Sweeny's residence, and asked him to repair the electrical 

system. Mr. Sweeny was not an employee of A-1 Muffler, but 

he towed the Willoughby's truck to A-1 Muffler to use the 

equipment there to repair the electrical problems. Mr. 

Spraggins refused him the use of the equipment, because the 

Willoughbys had not made any payment on their bill. Mr. 
Sweeny left the truck parked on a lot adjoining A-1 Muffler. 

The District Court found that "Defendant Mr. Spraggins then 

took possession of the truck to secure payment of his bill." 

Mrs. Willoughby telephoned Mr. Spraggins and asked that 

the pickup truck be returned. The Willoughbys had the truck 

towed from A-1 Muffler in May 1984. During the time the 

truck was parked on the lot adjoining A-1 Muffler, certain 

personal property in the camper was either damaged or 

removed. 

The Willoughbys initially filed an action for conversion, but after they took the truck back, they requested 

damages for the loss of use of the truck and for the value of 

the items of personal property damaged or removed from it. 

The District Court concluded in part: 

2. That the defendants did not wrongfully deprive 

plaintiffs of their vehicle. 

3. That while the vehicle was located at A-1 

Muffler and Auto Repair, the rear bumper and personal property was stolen from the vehicle. 

... 

The Willoughbys argue that conclusion #2 contradicts the 

requirement of § 71-3-1201(2), MCA, that an artisan's lien is 

"dependent on possession" which requires continuous possession. They argue that any artisan's lien held by Mr. 

Spraggins was extinguished when he allowed them to take the 

truck without paying for the repairs on it. Their position 

is that conclusion #2 contradicts Montana law. 

There was conflicting testimony as to whether Mr. 

Spraggins prevented the Willoughbys from reclaiming their 

truck at any time after it was parked in the lot next to A-1 

Muffler. The Willoughbys testified that Mr. Spraggins denied 
their request to return the truck. Mr. Spraggins testified 

that they could have reclaimed the truck at any time, as they 

eventually did. He testified that the keys were in the 

truck. Although the court found that Mr. Spraggins "took 

possession of" the truck, there was no finding that he prevented the Willoughbys from taking possession of the truck at 

any time. We conclude that the District Court's conclusion 

#2 does not imply that the court found Mr. Spraggins had an 

artisan's lien on the Willoughby truck when it was returned 

to the lot next to A-1 Muffler. There is substantial evidence to support conclusion #2 on the basis that Mr. 

Spraggins did not deprive the Willoughbys of possession of 

the truck. 

We affirm. 

We Concur: 

I