No. 96-035 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1996 

AIREFCO,Inc., 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

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. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Michael Sol, Sol &Wolfe Law Firm, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: . 

Wilmer E. Windham, Polson, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: May 9, 1996 

Filed: 

Decided: August 15, 1996 
Justice 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 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 State Reporter Publishing Company and West Publishing 

Company. 

Airefco, Inc. (Airefco) appeals the October 20, 1995 findings 

of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of the Twentieth Judicial 

District Court, Lake County and from 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 and judgment. We affirm. 

ISSUES 

Airefco raises the following issues on appeal. 

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 by way of cross-appeal: 

1. Did the District Court err in awarding damages to Airefco? 

2. Did the District Court err in awarding liquidated damages? 

3. Did the District Court err in its computation of the damages? 

BACKGROUND 

2 
BACKGROUND 

On or 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. On March 23, 

1995, Airefco, through its attorneys, issued a default notice to 

Brockmeyer for failure to pay rent and issued a 30-day notice of 

termination of the lease agreement. 

On April 17, 1995, Airefco filed a complaint 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. On May 31, 1995, 

Airefco moved for a default judgment. Brockmeyer's attorney 

requested the parties enter into a stipulation. 

Airefco and Brockmeyer subsequently entered into a 

stipulation, which the District Court approved by order on July 10, 

1995. The stipulation provided in part that if Brockmeyer did not 

move out of the premises by July 7, 1995, she would owe Airefco 

$3,000 in liquidated damages. Brockmeyer removed her personal 

property from the premises by July 14, 1995. On September 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 owed Airefco $3,000 in 

liquidated damages for holding over July 7, 1995, treble rent for 

3 
the 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 by the 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 a district 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), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686. Thus, we have 

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." Kamp v. First National Bank and Trust Co. (1973), 161 

Mont. 103, 106, 504 P.2d 987, 989. Similarly, in Walsh v. 

Ellingson Agency (1980), 188 Mont. 367, 373, 613 P.2d 1381, 1384, 

we stated 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 and examined the record in this case, 

we conclude simply, and without trying to analyze and discuss the 

various confusing arguments raised in the briefs, that neither the 

appellant northe cross-appellant has met its burden to demonstrate 

in any clear or convincing fashion in what respect the trial court 

erred. In so doing, we reiterate what should be obvious. If the 

appealing party is unable to first weave the fabric of reversible 

error, we will not engage in the task of stitching a silk purse. 

5