NO. 91

-271 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1991

MICHAEL C. BENGALA, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant,



### .. L...

### -.._ , 

### .~. , T1?'7?* ;...,. \ i V. CONSERVATIVE SAVINGS BANK, AND LOAN, a/k/a CONSERVATIVE SAVINGS

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable John S. Henson, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Michael C. Bengala, Pro se, Boardman, Ohio For Respondent: Colleen E. Ambrose, Sullivan & Tabaracci, P.C.; Missoula, Montana

Filed: Submitted on briefs: August 29, 1991 Decided: September 24, 1991Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a bench trial and judgment 

### in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County. Dr. Michael C. Bengala (Plaintiff/Appellant) appeals thetrial court finding that ConservativeSavingsBankofOmaha,Nebraska (Defendant/Respondent) did not commit actual 

### or constructive fraud in leasing commercial property to theplaintiff and thattheplaintiff improperly invoked the lessee's remedies under 

### 5 7 0
-2 6
-203,MCA. We affirm. Dr. Bengala (Bengala) entered into a three year lease agreement with Conservative Savings Bank (theBank) and the Randel Corporation. During negotiations for the leasehold,Bengala became
aware that the office building lay in a flood plain. He was informed by the Bank through its agent and property manager (Ms. Lonnie Warner), that in 1980 the basement of the building had flooded, that a berm had been constructed to minimize the risk of future flooding and that in the previous three years no flooding had occurred. Bengala took possession of the premises October 1, 1985. In February, 1986, flooding occurred, the berm failed to protect the building, and floodwater entered Bengala's office. Ms. Warner

(Warner) responded to the flood by directing the installation of
a sandbagdike and by bringing inpump trucks to remove floodwater from the building. Damage to Bengala's property in the office was prevented. Warner told Bengala, on his inquiry, that the sandbag dike

2was temporary and that the Bank would take further action to prevent the threat of future flooding. An engineering firm was hired: however, construction of a berm that would protect the propertywasnotpossiblebecause it entailedprocuring aneasement that the adjacent property owner was unwilling to provide. Throughout the remainder of the year, the Bank and the engineering firm attempted to develop alternative solutions. Meanwhile, the temporary sandbag dike, later fortifiedwith dirt, remained. In December,1986,Bengala withheld his rent in protest of the Bank's inaction on installation of permanent flood protection. 

### In January, 1987, Bengala wrote the Bank that he was pursuing remedy for breach of contract in accordance with 5 70

-26

-203, MCA, (Failure of Lessor to Repair

-Lessee's Remedies), and that he intended tovacate. Bengala remained as a tenant but continued to withhold his rent. 

### In February, 1987, Bengala sent a letter to Warner informing her that the sidewalks in front of the office had heaved upwards and created a dangerous hazard. Warner had warning signs placed next tothewalk and contacted a contractor

### to inspecttheproblem. It was determined that the cause of the upheaval was frost. When the frost subsided, the sidewalk returned to 

### its normal state and
no repairs were made. Twice,Bengala experienced problems with the sewer system. On both occasions the Bank, through Warner, timely responded and restored the sewer to working order. After refusing partial rent payments in April and May, the

3Bank gave Bengala notice to pay rent or quit. Bengala then initiated this action requesting the court rescind or revise the lease on thebasis ofmisrepresentation and failure of the Bank to remedy the flood threat and the sidewalk problem. The Bank counterclaimed that Bengala be ordered to vacate, pay back rent and penalties,pay future rent (untilthe space is sublet), and pay all costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Ultimately, Bengala was found to have improperly invoked the remedies of 5 70

-26

-203, MCA. The court ruled that no misrepresentations or other evidence of constructive fraud existed and therefore the lease was not revised or rescinded. Bengala was ordered to pay delinquent rent, and late penalties up to the time that he actually vacated (August, 1987). In addition, the Bank was awarded reasonable attorney's fees. Bengala appeals from this order. The issues for review are: 1) Did the District Court err by not finding that the Bank committed actual or constructive fraud? 2) Did theDistrict Court err in findingthatBengala suffered
no 

### loss of enjoyment, loss of business profits, or loss of reputation 

### as 

### a result of the flooding? 3) Did the District Court err when it made no finding of fact in regards to an alleged conflict of interest between the Bank and the Randel Corporation? Bengala asserts that the Bank committed actual fraud by concealing its inability to repair the flood control structure and

4by concealing that the sidewalk defect was a recurrent problem. Furthermore,Bengala asserts that the Bank committed constructive fraud and thereby breached a duty under the lease agreement when it failed to repair the flood control structure 

### or the sidewalks. Actual fraud as defined by 5 28

-2

-405,MCA:



# ... consists in any of the following acts committed by a party to the contract or with his connivancewith intent to deceive another party thereto or to induce him to enter into the contract:

(1) the suggestion as a fact of that which 

### is not true by one who does not believe it to be true;

(2) thepositive assertion, in a manner notwarranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true: (3) the suppression of that which is true by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (4) a promise made without any intention of performing it; or (5) any other act fitted to deceive. A prima facie case of actual fraud must include proof of a representation; its falsity; its materiality; the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; the speaker's intentthat it shouldbe acted upon by theperson and in themanner reasonably contemplated; the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; the hearer's reliance upon its truth; the right of the hearer to rely upon it: and the hearer's consequent and proximate injury or damage. AVCO Financial Services 

### v. Foreman

-Donovan (1989), 237 Mont. 260, 772 P.2d 862. Whether or not there has been fraud in any given case is a question of fact. AVCO Financial Services, 237 Mont. at 263. Review of questions of fact in a non-jury case aregovernedby Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., which provides in part that:

5Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. "[A] finding is 'clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, a review of the record leaves the court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Steer, Inc. 

### v. Department of Revenue of the State of Montana (Mont. 1990), 803 P.2d 601, 47 St.Rep. 2199, citing Wage Appeal of Montana State Highway Patrol Officers v. Board of Personnel Appeals (1984), 208 Mont. 33, 676 P.2d 194. Bengala argues that the Bank failed to provide evidence that it did not conceal its inability to repair. However, fraud can never be presumed but must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence by the party alleging the fraud. Batten 

### v. Watts Cycle and Marine, (1989) 240 Mont. 113, 783 P.2d 378, cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1826. Bengala had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the elements as elaborated in 

## m. The District Court finding that the evidenceBengala presented did notmeet this burden 

### is not clearly erroneous: therefore,we affirm. Bengala contends that the Bank committed constructive fraud by failing to repair. He relies on 5 28

-2

-406,MCA, which states in part that constructive fraud consists in: (1) any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains advantage to theperson in fault or anyone claiming underhimbymisleading another tohis prejudice or to the prejudice of anyone claiming under him; 

## . , 

# . Bengala asserts that the Bank has breached the provision in the 6lease providing that:
The lessor shall alsomaintain theroof, the foundations, exterior walls and structuralmembers of thepremisesand sidewalks in good condition. Bengala contends that regardless of the Bank's explanation for failing to do so, the lease obligated the Bank to make repairs to the flood control structure and the sidewalk and they have not. Allegedly, the Bank misled Bengala that the repairs would be made but have avoided doing so and thereby saved itself the cost of repair. The evidence 

### is clear that the Bank acted on the sidewalk problem and was attempting to resolve the flood problem. Bengala was not made aware of the Bank's efforts until after he withheld his rent in protest. In essence, Bengala is asking the court to find an affirmative duty on the part of the Bank to provide progress reports of the repairproject. Absence of these reports, Bengala contends, constitutes constructive fraud because it indicates concealmentand/or misleading conduct on thepart of the Bank. There is a failure of proof. The District Court's ruling that the Bank did not commit constructive fraud was not clearly
erroneous and therefore is affirmed. Nonetheless, the court did find that once Bengala vacated the office building he was no longer liable for further rent payment. Although it 

### is not clear, 

### it appears that the court did find a sufficientbreach of contract to support absolving Bengala from future payments on the lease. Whether or not the flood control structure is covered by the lease provision requiring 7

....repair, and the basis of the court's decision to absolve Bengala from future rents was not cross-appealed by the respondent and is not before this Court. The court ruled that Bengala improperly invoked the remedies of 

### 5 70-26-203, MCA, which states: 

### If within a reasonable time after notice to the lessor of dilapidations which he ought to repair, he neglects todo so,

# . . . the lesseemay perform such repairs himself and deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent, or the lesseemay vacate the premises, in which case he is discharged from furtherpayment of rent... 'Dilapidation' that a landlord 'ought' to repair "are thosewhich significantly diminish the enjoyment of the premises or substantially interfere with the purposes for which the leased premisesare intended. Bunke,Inc.

### v. Johnson (1983), 205Mont. 125, 666 P.2d 1234. The record here establishes that the sidewalk settled back down and was no longer in immediate need of repair, that the sewer system functioned properly and that the Bank wasmaking efforts to repair the flood control structure. Furthermore, Bengala did not repair the defects he complained of and deduct them fromhis rent, he did not vacate until August, 1987 and he did not pay rent from December 1986 until he vacated. The District Court ruled that the premises continued to be fit for use as an office. The court found that the sandbag dike, theproblems with the sewer system and the sidewalkproblem did not render the building unfit for its intended use. The record indicatesnot only thatBengalawas not entitled to invoke lessee's remedies pursuant to 

### 5 70-26-203, MCA, but also that the court 8correctly ruled that Bengala failed to properly invoke them. Because Bengala remained a tenant and the use of his leaseholdwas not substantially impaired, the courtproperly held Bengala liable pursuant to the lease agreement. Liability included rentpayments from December to August, late payment penalties and reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, the court did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that Bengala's reputation was damaged or business profits lost. Bengala has been abundantly clear from before he entered the lease agreement that as a medical professional he places tremendous importance in maintaining a professional atmosphere. Bengala alleges that the flooding, the sidewalk and the sewer problems have all detracted from that atmosphereand consequently diminished his reputationand business profits. Bengala asserts that the court failed to appreciate the seriousness of the evidence he offered and erred in its ruling. The record does not support these claims. The District Court's findingsare not clearly erroneousand therefore must be affirmed. Bengala makes one final claim regarding the relationship between the Bank and the Randel corporation. The adjacentproperty owner, a successor in interest to the Randel corporation (a colessor) would not grant the easement necessary to build the flood control structure. It appears that Bengala is attempting to argue that the Bank unduly influenced its co

-lessor to default on the adjacent property knowing that the successor in interest (a Maryland bank) would refuse to grant the easement and thereby save
9the Bank the expense of repair. There is no evidence on the record to substantiate such a tenuous claim. Bengala did not raise the issue of conflict of interest at trial. Its initial appearance is in his brief submitted to this Court. We will not consider an issue raised for the first tine on appeal. Schaeffer

### v. Champion Home Builders Co.

(1987), 229 Mont. 533, 747 P.2d 872, citing Rozel Corp. v. Department of Public Service Regulation (1987),226 Mont. 237, 735 P.2d 282. The District Court did not err by failing to make a finding of fact that a conflict of interest existed. Affirned.

We Concur:

10

### September24, 

### 1991 CERTIFICATE

### OFSERVICE Iherebycertifythat thefollowingorderwas sentby

### UnitedStatesmail,prepaid, tothe followingnamed:
MICHAELC. BENGALA P.O. Box3371 

### Boardman,Ohio 44.513


### ColleenAmbrose SULLIVAN&

### TABARACCI,P.C. 430

### Ryman Missoula,MT 59802 EDSMITH CLERK

### OF

### THESUPREME COURT