Title: STATE v HELEHAN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14974
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 5, 1980

No. 14974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE STATE OF MONTANA, Acting by and through the Department of Highways of the State of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, THOMAS HELEHAN, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, Honorable James D.Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Daniels and Mizner, Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Daniel J. Sullivan, Highway Legal Department, Helena, Montana . 7c$] - Filed: Submitted on briefs: January 16, 1980 Tr , " p- Decided : ' - 1380 - M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a n appeal from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r BOW, i n an eminent domain proceeding. I n J u l y 1965, t h e S t a t e of Montana through t h e D e - partment of Highways sought t o condemn p a r t of a patented mining claim o u t s i d e t h e C i t y of Butte, i n S i l v e r Bow County. Defendant Thomas Helehan owned an undivided one-eighth (1/8) i n t e r e s t i n t h e mining claim. Eleven y e a r s l a t e r a commission awarded t h e a p p e l l a n t Helehan t h e s u m of $30,886 f o r h i s i n t e r e s t ; and on December 15, 1976, Helehan and h i s a t t o r n e y , Joseph Engle 111, withdrew t h e sum of $23,194.50 by warrant made payable t o both o f them by t h e S i l v e r Bow County Clerk o f Court. Engle took one-third (1/3) of t h a t amount a s h i s a t t o r n e y f e e and Helehan took t h e balance. T h e r e a f t e r , d i f f e r e n c e s of opinion a r o s e between Engle and t h e a p p e l l a n t , and t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was severed. New counsel was obtained by Helehan and on May 3, 1979, a jury awarded Helehan t h e sum of $5,000 f o r h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e claim. T h e r e a f t e r , a t a hearing i n D i s t r i c t Court, a p p e l l a n t Helehan contended t h a t t h e judgment decreeing t h a t t h e excess monies withdrawn could only be c o l l e c t e d i n a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n and t h a t M r . Engle was an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y t o such a c t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court awarded judgment t o Helehan b u t deducted what it c a l c u l a t e d t o be t h e balance due t h e S t a t e of Montana. That judgment found t h a t Helehan was indebted t o t h e S t a t e of Montana f o r $15,680.88, p l u s i n t e r e s t . I t i s from t h a t judgment and a d e n i a l of t h e motion t o a l t e r o r amend s a i d judgment t h a t Helehan appeals. Two i s s u e s a r e presented on appeal: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y award t h e S t a t e of Montana a money judgment i n absence of a hearing on t h e m e r i t s and i n t h e absence of a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y c r e d i t i n t e r e s t due t h e defendant? I n o r d e r t o answer t h e f i r s t i s s u e p r o p e r l y , t h e respon- d e n t s u g g e s t s , and w e b e l i e v e q u i t e p r o p e r l y s o , t h e i s s u e should be r e s t a t e d i n t h e following manner: Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y i s s u e a judgment i n t h i s c a s e , providing t h a t t h e excess withdrawal of t h e a p p e l l a n t should be r e t u r n e d t o t h e S t a t e w i t h i n t e r e s t ? I t i s t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s argument t h a t s e c t i o n 70-30-311, MCA provides t h a t i n o r d e r t o recover any e x c e s s amounts i n a matter of t h i s type, t h e r e should be a s e p a r a t e l e g a l a c t i o n by t h e S t a t e . Appellant cites no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n o t h e r than t h e s t a t u t e , and f a i l s t o recognize t h a t t h i s very problem was considered by t h i s Court i n The S t a t e of Montana v. Churchwell (1965), 146 Mont. 52, 403 P.2d 751. I n t h a t c a s e , t h e Court considered t h e d e p o s i t of t h e 75% of a commission award a s provided by Chapter 234 of t h e Laws of 1961 and noted t h a t : "A c a r e f u l reading of t h e l a s t amendatory s e c t i o n c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t can l i m i t t h e draw-down t o 75 p e r c e n t u n l e s s s u r e t i e s a r e provided f o r t h e amount over 75 p e r c e n t . This p r o v i s i o n i s t o p r o t e c t t h e S t a t e where more money h a s been withdrawn than i s awarded by t h e j u r y , and w i t h a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , even though a n a c t i o n i s mentioned i n t h e s t a t u t e t h e r e could ap- p e a r t o be no reason under t h i s amendment t h a t should r e s t r a i n o r p r o h i b i t t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t i n f i n a l l y determining t h e i s s u e . " Churchwell, supra, a t 62, 403 P.2d a t 756. The D i s t r i c t Court recognized t h e a u t h o r i t y c i t e d i n churchwell and r u l e d accordingly. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e a p p e l l a n t c r e a t e d a s i d e - i s s u e by contending t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y Engle was p a i d some of t h e money withdrawn, t h e r e f o r e , t h e a t t o r n e y , by reason of such payment, became a p a r t y t o such a c t i o n and t h a t t h e S t a t e must look t o him t o recover t h a t money p a i d t o t h e a t t o r n e y by bringing a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n a g a i n s t him. Appellant cites no a u t h o r i t y t o support t h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Engle w a s a p a r t y t o t h e condemnation a c t i o n . N o f a c t s w e r e presented t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was n o t t h e s o l e p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e t r i a l . A s would appear from t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n , t h e payment by t h e a p p e l l a n t t o Engle must have been made pursuant t o some p r i v a t e agree- ment between counsel and a p p e l l a n t . The payment of some $7,000 by t h e a p p e l l a n t t o h i s a t t o r n e y c l e a r l y i s n o t a payment of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a s "necessary expenses of l i t i g a t i o n " pursuant t o s e c t i o n s 70- 30-305 and 70-30-306, MCA. Payment t o Engle w a s made a f t e r t h e condemnation award was deposited, b u t b e f o r e jury t r i a l . The c o u r t f i l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s payment was made a f t e r t h e commission award had been appealled. The award of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n a condemnation c a s e i s only authorized a t t h e conclusion of t h e l i t i g a t i o n . It i s o n l y authorized a f t e r n o t i c e and a hearing before t h e D i s t r i c t Court and i f t h e landowner p r e v a i l s i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e amount t o be paid i s n o t decided by t h e defendant i n a c o u r t condemnation a c t i o n , b u t by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. H e r e it i s obvious t h a t t h e payment t o Engle d i d n o t make him a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n , nor i s t h e r e any a u t h o r i t y c i t e d t o u s t h a t he became a n indispensable p a r t y . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s hereby affirmed. W e concur. % & ~ t ~ ~ Chief J u s t i c e