NO. 91-116 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

HAZEL FOOTTIT DUFOUR, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-VSALVIN WOLF and HELEN WOLF, 

Defendants and Respondents. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Carbon, 

The Honorable Maurice R. Colberg, Jr., Judge 

presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Arthur W. Ayers; Ayers Law Office, Red Lodge, 

Montana. 

For Respondent: 

Guy W. Rogers: Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull, 

Fulton, Harmon & Ross, Billings, Montana. 

Submitted on briefs: July 2, 1991 

Decided: August 27, 1991 

Clerk AUL 2 I994 
Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the District Court for the 

Thirteenth Judicial District, Carbon County, granting defendants' 

motion for a directed verdict and award of attorney fees. We 

affirm. 

The issues before us are: 

1. Did the District Court err in granting defendants' motion 

for a directed verdict on the issue of breach of the "option to 

purchase" the mobile home? 

2. Was the award of attorney fees proper? 

Plaintiff leased a portion of her land to defendants for a 

mobile home site. The lease included the following "option to 

purchasev1 provision. 

It is understood and agreed that in the event Tenants 

determine to terminate this lease and sell the mobile 

home unit presently located upon the property, Landlord 

shall have a ten (10) day option to purchase said mobile 

home unit by matching a bona fide offer. It is 

understood and agreed that Tenants shall give Landlord 

a ten (10) day written notice, delivered to her 

personally or to her attorney, of said option. It is 

further understood that said notice shall be an actual 

notice. 

In August 1987, after removing the mobile home from it's foundation 

while in the process of moving it to their own property, defendants 

sold the mobile home to the movers for $9,000. 

On March 19, 1989, the present lawsuit was filed by plaintiff 

against defendants alleging among other things, that defendants 

breached the "option to purchase" provision of the lease agreement. 

A jury trial was held. At the close of evidence, the District 

2 
Court granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict on the 

allegation of breach of the "option to purchase" the mobile home. 

The jury returned a verdict for defendants on the remaining issues 

of the lawsuit. After a hearing on August 27, 1990, the court 

granted defendants' request for attorney fees in the amount of 

$7,141.25. 

On appeal, plaintiff maintains that the court erred in 

granting a directed verdict and that the attorney fees were 

improper. 

The well established rule regarding the granting of directed 

verdicts has recently been stated in Chapel v. Allison (1990), 241 

Mont. 83, 86, 785 P.2d 204, 206: 

A motion for directed verdict is properly granted only 

in the complete absence of any evidence to warrant 

submission to the jury, and all inferences of fact must 

be considered in the light most favorable to the opposing 

party. [I]f the evidence viewed in a light most favorable 

to plaintiff indicates reasonable men might differ as to 

the conclusions drawn from the evidence, a directed 

verdict is not proper. (Citations omitted). 

After a complete review of the record, we conclude that the 

record is void of any evidence to warrant submitting the issue 

regarding the option to purchase to the jury. 

The District Court entered judgment awarding defendants 

$7,141.25 in attorney fees. Defendants presented the District 

Court with an affidavit which set forth the amount of time and 

attorney fees spent on the lawsuit and an evidentiary hearing was 

held. Plaintiff presented no evidence challenging the amount or 

nature of the attorney fees. 

The record portrays this case as an unfortunate and bitter 

3 
dispute among relatives. We hold that the District Court correctly 

granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict on the issue of 

breach of the option to purchase the mobile home and that the 

attorney fees were proper. The District Court is affirmed. 

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

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

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

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

L%Zst\ice 

We Concur: 1 

fLA. Chief ?WAC Justice 

4 
CLERK 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

following named: 

Arthur W. Ayers 

Ayers Law Office 

P.O. Box 67 

Red Lodge, MT 59068 

Guy W. Rogers 

Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull, Fulton, Harman & Ross 

P.O. Box 849 

Billings, MT 59103 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA