Title: WEYLER v KAUFMAN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-271
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 30, 1981

No. 81-271 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 HILMER D. WEYLER, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, ROY K A U F M A N , RALPH K A U F M A N , G E O R G E K A U F M A N , e t a l . , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourteenth 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 o f Golden Valley, The Honor- a b l e Nat Allen, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Pedersen, Herndon, Harper, Munro & Hartman, B i l l i n g s , Montana Herman & Mohr, Laurel, Montana For Respondent: Ask & P r a t t , Roundup, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : November 2 5 , 1981 Decided ; DEC 3 0 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . H i l m e r Weyler i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e District Court, Golden V a l l e y County, to r e c o v e r t h e b a l a n c e due and damages a r i s i n g o u t of a farming c o n t r a c t . Judgment was e n t e r e d f o r Weyler a g a i n s t t h e Kaufman b r o t h e r s i n t h e amount of $6,307.30, p l u s costs and a t t o r n e y f e e s . The Kaufmans a p p e a l . The Kaufmans own one farm i n Golden V a l l e y County n e a r L a v i n a , Montana, and a n o t h e r farm n e a r L a u r e l , Montana. During t h e summer of 1978, t h e Kaufmans r e q u i r e d a s s i s t a n c e i n con- v e r t i n g g r a z i n g land to seeded farm ground on t h e Golden V a l l e y p l a c e . Weyler, an independent c o n t r a c t f a r m e r , was h i r e d f o r t h e d i s c i n g j o b s a t t h e rate of $51.27 p e r hour. The d i s c i n g was completed i n June and i n August, and Weyler was promptly paid f o r h i s work. On j u l y 26 and 27 , 1978 , Weyler and t h e ~ a u f m a n s e n t e r e d i n t o an oral c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s e e d i n g of t h e Golden V a l l e y farm. Weyler w a s to f u r n i s h h i s own d r i l l s , and to seed t h e farm a t t h e rate of $4.00 p e r acre. The s t a r t i n g d a t e was t o be August 25, 1978, and t h e completion d a t e September 20, 1978. Weyler t e s t i f i e d he advised t h e Kaufmans t h a t he would need an advance payment i n o r d e r to meet t h e $9,000 down payment on t h e d r i l l s he was p u r c h a s i n g . Weyler t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n August when he approached t h e Kaufmans f o r t h e advance and t h e y r e f u s e d , he t o l d them he would have to f i n i s h a n o t h e r job i n o r d e r to g e t t h e money f o r t h e d r i l l s . A s a r e s u l t of t h i s and o t h e r d e l a y s , t h e s e e d i n g was s t a r t e d on September 1 0 and completed on O c t o b e r 6. Weyler seeded 4690 acres a t $4.00 p e r acre and f o r a total c o n t r a c t p r i c e of $18,760. The Kaufmans made payments t o t a l i n g $14,000, b u t r e f u s e d to pay t h e b a l a n c e c l a i m i n g t h e y were not s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e work. P r i o r to s e e d i n g , Weyler spot-disced one of t h e f i e l d s which had areas of heavy sage brush. He b i l l e d t h e Kaufmans f o r t h i s work a t $627.30, b u t t h e y r e f u s e d to pay because t h e y main- t a i n e d t h e s p o t d i s c i n g w a s included i n t h e seeding c o n t r a c t . Weyler demanded payment on t h e seed i n g c o n t r a c t s e v e r a l times, t h e n f i l e d a l i e n a g a i n s t t h e Golden V a l l e y p r o p e r t y and commenced t h i s a c t i o n . The Kaufmans a l l e g e d t h a t Weyler impro- p e r l y performed t h e s e e d i n g and caused a poor c r o p y i e l d , and counter-claimed f o r damages of $85,000 due to c r o p l o s s and f o r damages of $600,000 due t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e l i e n . Following t r i a l , t h e District Court e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and judgment, awarding Weyler damages f o r t h e b a l a n c e d u e on t h e s e e d i n g c o n t r a c t i n t h e amount of $4,760 p l u s i n t e r e s t , f o r t h e s p o t d i s c i n g i n t h e amount of $627.30, f o r c o n s e q u e n t i a l damages of $920 due to t h e i n a b i l i t y of t h e p l a i n t i f f t o perform w i n t e r maintenance on h i s equipment, and f o r costs and a t t o r n e y f e e s . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e Kaufmans s u s t a i n e d no damages as a r e s u l t of t h e p l a i n t i f f I s farming and t h a t t h e Kaufmans f a i l e d to p r e s e n t evidence on t h e i r claim f o r damages d u e to t h e f i l i n g of t h e l i e n . The i s s u e on review is whether t h e e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e District Court w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e performance of t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e damages and t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m . The g e n e r a l r u l e is t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s w i l l n o t be set a s i d e i f supported by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e and by t h e l a w . Evidence w i l l be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l be pre- sumed c o r r e c t u n l e s s it is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.; Toeckes v. Baker ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 6 1 1 P.2d 609, 37 St.Rep. 948. The Kaufmans contend t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t Weyler f u l l y performed t h e s e e d i n g c o n t r a c t and was e n t i t l e d to f u l l payment. S p e c i f i c a l l y t h e y a r g u e t h a t Weyler f a i l e d to perform by September 20, t h e agreed c o m p l e t i o n d a t e , and f u r t h e r t h a t h i s f a i l u r e to t i m e l y perform caused them e x t e n s i v e loss due to poor c r o p y i e l d . I n a d d i t i o n t h e Kaufmans claimed Weyler' s performance was u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . P r i o r to e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e p a r t i e s d i s c u s s e d t h e d e t a i l s of t h e job i n c l u d i n g t h e equipment to be used, t h e d e p t h of t h e seed placement, t h e s t a r t i n g d a t e of August 25, t h e completion d a t e of September 20, and t h e rate. By t e l e p h o n e o n J u l y 27, 1978, George Kaufman t o l d Weyler to go ahead w i t h t h e j o b . Weyler t e s t i f i e d : " . . . And I s a i d f i n e , and I was r e a l l y happy a b o u t it. I j u s t s a i d t h e o n l y c o n d i t i o n t h a t I was--the o n l y c o n d i t i o n I s a i d was i n o r d e r to meet t h e time frame we t a l k e d a b o u t it was going t o be i m p e r a t i v e t h a t I g e t some h e l p on t h e $9,000.00 down payment on t h e d r i l l s . And George s a i d w e l l I t h i n k we can work something o u t on t h a t . " George Kaufman denied t h a t Weyler t o l d him he needed a n advance i n o r d e r to a c q u i r e t h e d r i l l s , a l t h o u g h he a d m i t s knowing t h a t Weyler d i d n o t have h i s own d r i l l s . n o t t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s Court r e s o l v e con£ l i c t s i n t h e e v i d e n c e . The District Court h a s t h e advantage of o b s e r v i n g t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s . The t r i a l c o u r t h a s r e s o l v e d t h i s c o n f l i c t i n f a v o r of Weyler and t h i s f i n d i n g is supported by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Weyler a c c e p t e d t h e Kaufmanst o f f e r on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t he g e t some a s s i s t a n c e from them on t h e down payment. George Kaufman mani- f e s t e d h i s a s s e n t to t h a t c o n d i t i o n . The oral c o n t r a c t t h u s con- t a i n e d a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t ; i.e. a c o n d i t i o n which had t o be performed b e f o r e Weyler was a b s o l u t e l y bound to t h e s p e c i f i e d time frame. S e c t i o n 28-1-403, MCA. When t h e c o n d i t i o n was n o t performed by t h e Kaufmans , Weyler w a s r e l i e v e d of h i s o b l i g a t i o n to meet t h e s p e c i f i e d d a t e s of performance. Roy Kaufman admitted t h a t t h e y gave Weyler an e x t e n s i o n on t h e s t a r t i n g d a t e . Once Weyler w a s no l o n g e r bound to t h e s p e c i f i e d d a t e s , t h e c o n t r a c t was to be performed w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . S e c t i o n 28-3-601, MCA. The Kaufmans on a p p e a l d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e f i n d i n g of t h e District Court t h a t t h e b a l a n c e due on t h e c o n t r a c t was $18,760. Y e t b o t h George Kaufman and Roy Kaufman t e s t i f i e d t h a t Weyler had s e e d e d 4690 acres a t $4.00 p e r a c r e . An i n i t i a l estimate of 4500 acres was agreed upon by t h e p a r t i e s pending f i n a l measurement, b u t t h e o f f i c i a l measurement was 4690 acres. S u b t r a c t i n g payments of $14,000 made on t h e c o n t r a c t from t h e total c o n t r a c t p r i c e of $18,760, t h e b a l a n c e due w a s $4,760. The t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h i s amount. The b u l k of t h e e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l concerned t h e manner i n which t h e s e e d i n g was performed and t h e y i e l d of w i n t e r wheat h a r v e s t e d by t h e Kaufmans t h e f o l l o w i n g summer. The Kaufmans a t t e m p t e d t o prove t h a t Weyler performed u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y and t h a t t h e i r l o w y i e l d was a d i r e c t r e s u l t of h i s f a u l t y performance. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e farming was done i n a workmanlike manner, t h a t t h e lower y i e l d was due to s e v e r e w i n t e r k i l l and a d r y summer i n 1979, t h a t neighboring farms had similar l o w y i e l d s , and t h a t t h e Kaufmans s u s t a i n e d no damage as a r e s u l t of W e y l e r ' s performance. These f i n d i n g s are s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . Ray C h o r i k i , an a g r i c u l t u r a l c o n s u l t a n t , m e t i c u l o u s l y examined t h e f i e l d s and found no e v i d e n c e of s h a l l o w s e e d i n g or unevenly set d r i l l s . H i s d e t a i l e d t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d numerous c a u s e s f o r t h e poor s p o t s , p r i m a r i l y t h e s e v e r e w i n t e r k i l l and d r y summer of t h a t y e a r . Neighboring f a r m e r s t e s t i f i e d t h e y had similar l o w y i e l d s t h a t y e a r . F i n a l l y , t h e Kaufmans c o n t e s t t h e award of damages f o r t h e s p o t d i s c i n g and t h e r e p a i r of t h e tractor. With r e g a r d to t h e s p o t d i s c i n g , t h e r e w a s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e t e s t i m o n y of b o t h p a r t i e s . The Kaufmans m a i n t a i n e d t h e s p o t d i s c i n g was i n c l u d e d i n t h e s e e d i n g c o n t r a c t . Weyler t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had g i v e n t h e Kaufmans h i s rate s h e e t showing $51.27 p e r hour f o r d i s c i n g . H e b i d t h e s e e d i n g a t $4.50 p e r acre b u t s e t t l e d f o r $4.00 p e r acre. H e understood t h e d i s c i n g would be under t h e same t e r m s as t h e p r e v i o u s d i s c i n g j o b s a t t h e rate s p e c i f i e d . The District Court r e s o l v e d t h i s c o n f l i c t i n W e y l e r l s f a v o r , and t h i s Court w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . However, we f i n d t h a t t h e award of $920 f o r t h e maintenance and towing of W e y l e r l s t r a c t o r is n o t supported by t h e e v i d e n c e . Weyler t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was aware of t h e problem w i t h t h e r i n g and p i n i o n of h i s tractor a t t h e t i m e he e n t e r e d i n t o t h e s e e d i n g c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e Kaufmans. P r i o r to t h a t t i m e he had r e c e i v e d payment f o r t h e f i r s t d i s c i n g jobs. Damages are n o t r e c o v e r a b l e u n l e s s t h e y are proved t o have been p r o x i m a t e l y caused or l i k e l y t o r e s u l t from t h e breach of c o n t r a c t . S e c t i o n 27-1-311, MCA. The e v i d e n c e does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e tractor breakdown was p r o x i m a t e l y caused by t h e f a i l u r e of t h e Kaufmans to pay t h e b a l a n c e when due. No e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d by t h e Kaufmans on t h e i r coun- terclaim f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from t h e f i l i n g of t h e l i e n , t h e r e f o r e t h e District Court p r o p e r l y denied t h a t r e l i e f . Remanded w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o reduce t h e judgment by $920, and as so modified t h e judgment is a f f irmed . -. Chief ~ u s t i c e W e concur: L