Title: OLSON v WESTFORK PROPERTIES INC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13326
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 1976

No. 13326 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1976 F R E D OLSON, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, W E S T F O R K PROPERTIES, INC., a Montana Corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Landoe, Gary and Planalp, Bozeman, Montana Robert Planalp argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Berg, Angel, Andriolo and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Charles Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: October 14, 1976 Decided : NOV 3 0 1976 Filed : 3 0 1976 M r . Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This action involves an attempted foreclosure of a mechanic's l i e n again property of a corporation by a contractor. The d i s t r i c t court, Gallatin County, entered findings of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment for defendant corporation, O n October 6, 1973 plaintiff Fred Olson and defendant Westfork Properties, Inc., entered into a contract t o i n s t a l l sewer and water lines on Westfork's property, a subdivision near the Big Sky recreation area, Plaintiff Olson was t o supply men and equipment while Westfork supplied a l l required materials and some equipment including a tractor, lowboy t r a i l e r and a backhoe operated by a Westfork employee, for the project. Plans and specifications were drawn for the project by the firm of Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, professional engineers. A n employee of the firm, James A. Cummings, a registered professional engineer, was assigned t o supervise the project and insure specifications were met. Plaintiff was t o receive $3 for each installed and approved lineal foot of line, with payments t o be made on the 10th of each month following submission of a statement on the l a s t day of the month preceding. Ten percent of each payment was retained by defendant corporation as a l'holdbackl', t o be paid t o plaintiff no l a t e r than 30 days a f t e r satisfactory completion of the e n t i r e project. The contract required a l l work be done according t o specifications which required (1) backfill of subgrade leaving no rocks or stones within 6 inches of the finished subgrade elevations t o interfer with l a t e r road construction; (2) the contractor was t o clean up the area and leave it essentially i n the same condition as when the project began, which included an obligation t o remove a l l rocks brought t o the surface i n the course of h i s excavation; (3) a l l backfill was t o be compacted t o contract specifications; and (4) a l l lines were t o be subjected t o a hydrostatic pressure t e s t a f t e r backfilling was completed. Olson was obligated t o repair any lines that failed these tests. Olson began work on the project about 10 days a f t e r the agreement was executed. Monthly billings were submitted and as of August 4, 1974, the t o t a l billings amounted t o $92,786.66, of which Olson had been paid $81,860.99, with Westfork holding back $10,925.67 pending satisfactory completion of the project. The statement submitted by Olson on August 4, 1974, indicated he considered the project t o be completed. Testimony a t the d i s t r i c t court t r i a l indicatEs the contract had not been completed t o the satisfaction of Westfork or ehgineer Cummings, because there was a 616 foot section of water l i n e i n the project which had failed the hydrostatic t e s t s and also because the cleanup work required by the contract was not satisfactory. N o further installation o r cleanup work was done on Westfork's property a f t e r August 4, 1974. Olson did return t o the property t o complete testing of the lines and t o attempt location and repair of the leak i n the section which failed hydrostatic tests. Three days were spent i n an unsuccessful search for the leak, u n t i l November 27, 1974, when Olson and h i s crew were l a s t on t h i s project. Olson filed a mechanic's l i e n on February 25, 1975 on the property owned by Westfork and subsequently filed an action t o foreclose his lien, claiming $11,096.66 plus interest and reasonable attorney fees. Westfork's answer asserted the lien was null and void and contained a counterclaim seeking damages of $18,733.85 sustained in correction of alleged deficiencies in work performed. The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law awarding $9,812 to Westfork, to be withheld from the $10,925.67 "holdback". In addition, the court concluded Olson was not entitled to a valid lien because the project was not completed to the satisfaction of Westfork and in compldance with the plans and specifications. The district court also concluded the lien had not been filed within 90 days after the last labor and machinery was furnished by plaintiff in installation of the water and sewer lines. This Court's function in reviewing findings of fact in a civil action tried by the district court without a jury is not to substitute its judgment in place of the trier of facts but rather it is "confined to determining whether there is substantial credible evidence to support" the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hornung v . Estate of Lagerquist, 155 Mont. 412, 420, 473 P.2d 541. See also: Transamerica Ins. Co. v . Glacier Gen. Assurance Co., 163 Mont. 454, 461, 517 P.2d 888. Although conflicts may exist in the evidence presented, it is the duty and function of the trial judge to resolve such conflicts. His findings will not be distmpbed on appeal where they are based on substantial though conflicting evidence. Fausett v. Blanchard, 154 Mont. 301, 463 P.2d 319; Clough v. Jackson, 156 Mont. 272, 479 P.2d 266; Intermountain Electric, Inc. v. Berndt, 164 Mont. 67, 518 P.2d 1168; City of Missoula v . Rose, 164 Mont. 90, 519 P.2d 146. - 4 - In determining whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Hellickson v. Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc., 161 Mont. 455, 507 P.2d 523; McEwen v. Big Sky of Montana, Inc., - Mont . , 545 P.2d 665, 33 St.Rep. 79. Substantial evidence has been defined by this Court as such as will convince reasonable men and on which such men may not reasonably differ as to whether it establishes the plaintiff's case, and, if all reasonable men must conclude that the evidence does not establish such case, then it i$ not substantial evidence. The evidence may be inherently weak and still be deemed "substantial", and one witness may be sufficient to establish the preponderance of a case. See: Staggers v. U.S.F. & G. Co., 159 Mont. 254, 496 P.2d 1161; Greene v. Knapp's Service, 161 Mont. 438, 440, 506 P.2d 1381. The district court after hearing testimony granted defendant's counterclaims in the amount of $9,812.. Damages awarded consisted of: ( 1 ) $4,312 for repair of the leaking section of water line; ( 2 ) $2,000 for cleanup of the area; (3) $3,000 for rental value of the tractor, lowboy, and backhoe furnished by Westfork; and ( 4 ) $500 for the cost of replacement of a number of survey markers buried or knocked down by Olson in the course of construction operations. No evidence was offered by either party as to the cost of cleanup, also defendant conaeded the evidence most favorable to it in regard to rental of the Westfork equipment will only support an award of $1,600, therefore the judgment must be reduced by $3,400. Ample evidence and testimony was offered to support the balance of the judgment and the d i s t r i c t c o u r t t s award must stand, reduced only by the amount for which there was no evidence offkred by either party. The d i s t r i c t court's determination regarding the invalidity of the l i e n f i l e d by Olson is supported by the evidence offered a t t r i a l . . A contractor cannot successfully assert a mechanic's l i e n upon the property where there has been only part performance o r a lack of substantial performance of the work for which the party claims the lien. 53 Am Jur 2d, Mechanics' Liens, 3 51; Fidelity Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Baldwin, (Tex.Civ.App. 1967), 416 S.W.2d 482; Intermountain Electric, Inc. v. Berndt, 164 Mont. 67, 518 P.2d 1168. Testimony offered supports the de terminat ion that p l a i n t i f f failed t o complete the work contracted t o be done. Several hundred f e e t of water l i n e leaked, much of the rock brought t o the surface during excavation was windrowed rather than removed, and compaction of backfill was not done according t o contract- specifications and procedures. . This Court i n Western Plumbing of Bozeman v. Garrison, - Mont. , , P.2d , 33 St. Rep. 868, 870, held: "* * * we find the liens were f i l e d prematurely and are therefore invalid. I n Montana the general rule is that the lien arises only upon completion of the contracted work. * * * Although substantial performance of the contracted work meets t h i s requirement, such substantial performance is a condition precedent t o l i a b i l i t y of the homeowners." The l i e n is invalid and unenforceable for failure of the contractor t o substantially complete performance, therefore it i s unnecessary t o determine whether testing and repair work extend the time period within which the l i e n could have been f i l e d under section 45-502, R.C.M. 1947. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court is affirmed a s modified herein. Justices / I Hon. Robert C. ,S*es, District Judge, sitting,::,£ or Justice Wesley Castles.