Title: MARTIN v RANDONO
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-161
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 17, 1981

No. 80-161 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 W. D. MARTIN, a/k/a DON MARTIN and ANN MARTIN, his wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, GENE RANDONO, CAROL RANDONO, his wife and GREAT FALLS FOREST PRODUCTS INC. , a l f t . corp. Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark. Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Joseph C. Engel, Butte, Montana For Respondents: C.F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana Submitted on briefs: January 8, 1981 Decided: February 17, 1981 Filed: FEfi 1 7 156): Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison delivered the Opinion of t h e Court . This is an appeal from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Lewis & Clark County, decreeing: (1) t h a t no damages be awarded defendants f o r l o s t r e n t s from premises t h a t w e r e t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s a c t i o n ; ( 2 ) t h a t no damages be awarded de- fendants f o r l o s s of s a l e of such premises; ( 3 ) t h a t de- fendants n o t be awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s a s t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n t h i s action; ( 4 ) t h a t W. A. Randono n o t be compensated f o r t i m e personally s p e n t i n recovering t h e property. Defendants were awarded c o s t s t o t a l i n g $1,524.57 and n e i t h e r p a r t y ap- p e a l s t h a t p a r t of t h e judgment. The cause was previously before t h i s Court. Martin v. Randono (1978), 175 Mont. 321, 573 P.2d 1156, contains a d e t a i l e d discussion of t h e f a c t s . I n 1972, t h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d an a c t i o n t o q u i e t t i t l e on a twenty-two a c r e t r a c t of land located seven m i l e s e a s t of Lincoln, Montana. T i t l e was claimed through adverse possession. Defendants, t h e Randonos and Great F a l l s F o r e s t Products, I n c . , ( a Randono family owned corporation) counter- claimed contending ownership and sought damages f o r wrongful occupation of property. I n 1975, t h e D i s t r i c t Court decreed t h e p l a i n t i f f s had e s t a b l i s h e d t i t l e t o t h e t r a c t of land by adverse possession. O n appeal, Martin v. Randono, supra, t h i s judgment was re- versed and remanded f o r determination of damages on de- fendants' counterclaim. The D i s t r i c t Court ordered an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing t o e s t a b l i s h t h e amount of damages r e s u l t i n g from p l a i n t i f f s ' wrongful occupation. Hearings were held on March 9 and 1 2 , 1979, and on June 26, 1979. A f t e r receiving a l l evidence, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered i t s judgment from which t h e defendants appeal. The following 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 e r r i n not awarding damages t o defendants f o r l o s t r e n t s ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n n o t awarding damages t o defendants f o r l o s s of s a l e ? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n n o t awarding de- fendants a t t o r n e y fees? 4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n n o t awarding W . A. Randono damages f o r time expended a s c o s t s of recovering t h e property. P l a i n t i f f s conceded l i a b i l i t y f o r damages, i f any, f o r wrongful occupation, i f t h e i r claim of adverse possession was not upheld. Since adverse possession was held not t o l i e , Martin v. Randono, supra, p l a i n t i f f s became l i a b l e f o r any damages proven by defendants. Defendants' measure of damage i s governed by s e c t i o n 27- -1-318, MCA, which s t a t e s : "Wrongful occupation of r e a l property. The d e t r i - ment caused by t h e wrongful occupation of r e a l property . . . i s deemed t o be t h e value of t h e use of t h e property f o r t h e t i m e of such occupation, not exceeding f i v e years next preceding t h e com- mencement of t h e a c t i o n o r proceeding t o enforce t h e r i g h t t o damages, and t h e c o s t s , i f any, of recovering t h e possession." Defendants claimed f o r l o s t r e n t a l value. The property produced no income during t h e period i n question. I n an attempt t o prove damage, W. A. Randono, t e s t i f y i n g on behalf of t h e defendants, gave varying estimates of t h e r e n t a l value. I n i n t e r r o g a t o r y answers dated 1975, t h e l o s t r e n t a l value was placed a t $1,500 per year; i n answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s sub- mitted i n 1979, t h e r e n t a l value was claimed t o be $3,000 per month, p l u s $50 t o $100 a month f o r some cabins; a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , Randono gave estimates ranging from $4,000 per year t o $10,000 per year. One could only speculate about what damage, i f any, was suffered. I n Cruse v. Clawson (1960), 137 Mont. 439, 352 P.2d 989, t h i s Court s t a t e d : " . . . a. person may - recover f o r l o s s of p r o f i t s where it i s shown t h a t such l o s s --- -- --- is t h e n a t u r a l and d i r e c t r e s u l t of t h e a c t of t h e defendant - complained of and t h a t such amount - i s c e r t a i n and n o t specu- -- l a t i v e . " (Emphasis added. ) Defendants contend t h a t proof of damages must be specula- t i v e t o a degree i n t h i s case and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e owner must be a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h value. I n support, defendants c i t e P r i t c h a r d Petroleum Co. v. Farmers Co-op O i l & Sup. Co. (1948), 121 Mont. 1, 190 P.2d 55, f o r t h e proposition t h a t t h e owner's opinion of r e n t a l value i s c o n t r o l l i n g . However, P r i t c h a r d i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e because t h e c o u r t determined only t h a t an owner's testimony of t h e value of t h e use of property was suf- f i c i e n t t o preclude nonsuit by t h e opposing p a r t y . I t should a l s o be noted t h a t i n P r i t c h a r d t h e owner set f o r t h only one estimate of t h e value of t h e r e n t a l , n o t f o u r , a s d i d W. A. Randono i n t h e i n s t a n t case. The burden of preponderance i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s a t i s f i e d by o f f e r i n g some admissible evidence. C r e d i b i l i t y i s a necessary i n g r e d i e n t of probative proof. W e cannot say t h e t r i a l c o u r t was c l e a r l y erroneous i n f i n d i n g defendants f a i l e d t o c a r r y t h e i r burden. Defendants claim they l o s t a s a l e of t h e land as a r e s u l t of p l a i n t i f f s ' wrongful occupation. W . A. Randono t e s t i f i e d t h a t a "firm commitment" had been reached between himself and a prospective purchaser, regarding a s a l e of t h e property b u t t h e s a l e f a i l e d because of p l a i n t i f f s ' claim of ownership. Randono l a t e r t e s t i f i e d , however, t h a t they were only "nego- t i a t i n g t h e deal." The prospective buyer t e s t i f i e d t h a t he not s u r e whether t h e "deal" was t o cover t e n o r twenty a c r e s . Some testimony showed Randono and t h e p o t e n t i a l buyer were con- s i d e r i n g a purchase a t $2,000 per a c r e . However, o t h e r t e s t i - mony showed t h e land t o be worth l e s s than $500 per a c r e a t t h e time negotiations w e r e being conducted. Defendants admitted a t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y hearing t h a t t h e e n t i r e twenty-two a c r e t r a c t , which was t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s d i s p u t e , was l a t e r sold by defendants t o a d i f f e r e n t buyer f o r $1,505 per a c r e . Given t h e evidence presented, defendants f a i l e d t o prove t h a t a s a l e was l o s t a s t h e r e s u l t of wrongful occupation. Had a s a l e been l o s t , evidence e x i s t s t o support a f i n d i n g t h a t defendants f a i l e d t o prove damage. W e t u r n now t o defendants' claim f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s . The general r u l e i s t h a t i n absence of s t a t u t e o r c o n t r a c t , a t t o r n e y f e e s w i l l n o t be awarded. Bitney v. School D i s t . No. 4 4 (1975), 167 Mont. 129, 535 P.2d 1273; Nikles v. Barnes (1969), 153 Mont. 113, 454 P.2d 608. Defendants contend t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s should be con- s t r u e d a s ". . . c o s t s , i f any, of recovering t h e possession [of r e a l p r o p e r t y ] , " pursuant t o s e c t i o n 27-1-318, MCA, o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e such f e e s should be awarded pursuant t o t h e e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e espoused i n Foy v. Anderson (1978), 176 Mont. 507, 580 P.2d 1 1 4 . W e d e c l i n e t o follow e i t h e r con- t e n t i o n i n t h i s case. The r u l e i s well e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana. The s t a t u t o r y t e r m " c o s t s " does n o t include a t t o r n e y f e e s . Higgins v . Mont. Montana Hotel Corp. (1979) , , 592 P.2d 930, 36 St.Rep. 531. The c o u r t ' s e q u i t y power t o award a t t o r n e y f e e s was d i s - cussed i n Joseph RusselL Rlty. co. v. Kenneally (1980), Mont. , 605 P.2d 1107:, 37 St.Rep. 57. This Court recog- nized t h e lower c o u r t ' s g e n e r a l e q u i t y power t o make an i n j u r e d I p a r t y whole and t h a t i n 1 s o m e i s o l a t e d c a s e s , a t t o r n e y f e e s could properly come w i t h i n t h a t power. However, t h e c o u r t determined t h a t such anlaward was w i t h i n t h e lower c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n ( c i t i n g Foy V. Anderson, s u p r a ) and t h a t a b s e n t a n abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , thb lower c o u r t ' s determination would stand. A s i n Russell - - , Rlty. Co., supra, t h i s Court f i n d s no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e lower c o u r t i n n o t awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e defendants. F i n a l l y , defendants contend t h a t W. A. Randono should be compensated f o r t h e t i m e he s p e n t i n recovering t h e p r o p e r t y including t i m e s p e n t i n preparing f o r t r i a l . Defendants r e l y on s e c t i o n 27-1-317, MCA, and s e c t i o n 27-1-320(1), MCA. D e - fendants' r e l i a n c e upon t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s i s misplaced. Sec- t i o n 27-1-317, MCA, provides a measure of damages only where damages a r e n o t e x p r e s s l y provided f o r elsewhere i n t h e code. S e c t i o n 27-1-318, MCA, governs measure of damages i n i n s t a n c e s of wrongful occupation apd t h e r e f o r e , s e c t i o n 27-1-317, MCA, i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e . S e c t i o n 27-1-320(1), MCA, i s a p p l i c a b l e only t o conversions of personal property, which is i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c a s e a t b a r . The personal t i m e i n v e s t e d by W. A. Randono i s n o t a " c o s t " a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 27-1-318, MCA, and t h e r e f o r e , n o t recoverable. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e