No. 96-035 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATE OFMONTANA 1996 AIREFCO,Inc., Plaintiff andAppellant,
v. LINZEE BROCKMEYER, Defendant, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,

In and for the County of Lake, The Honorable C.B. McNeil, Judge presiding.

COUNSELOFRECORD:

For Appellant: Michael Sol, Sol &Wolfe LawFirm, Missoula, Montana For Respondent:

. Wilmer E. Windham, Polson, Montana

Submitted onBriefs: May9, 1996
Filed: Decided: August 15, 1996Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1995 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited asprecedent andshall bepublished byits filing asapublic document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court andbyareport of its result to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Publishing Company. Airefco, Inc. (Airefco) appeals the October 20, 1995 findings of fact, conclusions of law andjudgment of the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County andfrom the court's November 20, 1995 order denying Airefco's motion to alter or amend. Linzee Brockmeyer (Brockmeyer) cross appeals from the same October 20, 1995 findings of fact, conclusions of law andjudgment. Weaffirm. ISSUES Airefco raises the following issues onappeal. 1. Did the District Court err in not awarding Airefco unpaid rent? 2. Did the District Court err in not awarding Airefco attorney fees?3. Did the District Court err in not awarding Airefco statutory treble damages? Brockmeyer raises the following issues bywayof cross-appeal: 1. Did the District Court err in awarding damages toAirefco? 2. Did the District Court err in awarding liquidated damages? 3. Didthe District Court err in its computation ofthedamages? BACKGROUND 2BACKGROUND

Onor about February 1, 1986, Airefco and Brockmeyer entered
a lease agreement for a commercial property in Lake County, Montana. Brockmeyer entered the lease knowing that Airefco was looking for a buyer for the commercial property. OnMarch 23, 1995, Airefco, through its attorneys, issued adefault notice to Brockmeyer for failure to pay rent and issued a30-day notice of termination of the lease agreement. OnApril 17, 1995, Airefco filed acomplaint in district court seeking possession of the premises, damages for unpaid rent, and attorney fees. Brockmeyer failed to answer the complaint and the clerk of court entered Brockmeyer's default. OnMay 31, 1995, Airefco moved for a default judgment. Brockmeyer's attorney requested the parties enter into astipulation. Airefco and Brockmeyer subsequently entered into a stipulation, which the District Court approved byorder onJuly 10, 1995. The stipulation provided in part that if Brockmeyer did not
move out of the premises by July 7, 1995, she would oweAirefco $3,000 in liquidated damages. Brockmeyer removed her personal property from the premises byJuly 14, 1995. OnSeptember 1, 1995, Airefco moved the District Court for judgment requesting the damages specified in the stipulation. Following a hearing, the District Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment, finding that the stipulation terminated the lease and that pursuant to the stipulation, Brockmeyer owedAirefco $3,000 in liquidated damages for holding over July 7, 1995, treble rent for
3the 7 hold over days, and $430 for damages to the property.

Moreover, the District Court did not award either party attorney fees. Airefco moved to alter or amend the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. On November 20, 1995, the District Court denied Airefco's motion. Both parties appeal the October 20, I995 findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment entered bythe District Court. DISCUSSION The basis of both parties' appeals rests on the District Court's findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. We review adistrict court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous: Daines v. Knight (19951, 269 Mont. 320, 324, 888 P.2d 904, 906. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co., Inc. (1995), 271Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686. Thus, wehave held that "this Court indulges the presumption that the judgment of the district court is correct and will be upheld unless clearly shown to be erroneous, the burden of showing which rests upon the appellant." Kampv. First National Bank andTrust Co. (1973), 161 Mont. 103, 106, 504 P.2d 987, 989. Similarly, in Walsh v. Ellingson Agency (1980), 188Mont. 367, 373, 613 P.2d 1381, 1384,
westated that the appellant has the burden of showing that the district court erred and that this Court will not reverse the district court absent the demonstration of such error.
4

### Having read the briefs andexamined the record in this case,

weconclude simply, andwithout trying to analyze anddiscuss the various confusing arguments raised inthebriefs, that neither the appellant northe cross-appellant hasmetits burden todemonstrate inanyclear orconvincing fashion inwhat respect the trial court erred. In sodoing, wereiterate what should beobvious. If the appealing party is unable to first weavethe fabric of reversible error, wewill not engageinthe task of stitching asilk purse.

5