Title: ENSLEY v MURPHY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-174
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 10, 1983

No. 82-174 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA ALVIN R. ENSLEY, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, MICHAEL M U R P H Y , a/k/a PHILLIP ERNEST KRINER, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth 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 Missoula Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Tipp, Hoven, S k j e l s e t & F r i z z e l l , Missoula, Montana Thomas F r i z z e l l , Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Theodore J. Cowan, Missoula, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : November 5,,L982 Decided: February 1 0 , 1983 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Following an o r d e r t o show cause h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f t a k e temporary p o s s e s s i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s 1965 Kenworth d i e s e l t r u c k . Defendant a p p e a l s . P l a i n t i f £/respondent i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n by f i l i n g a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e S u p e r i o r Court of t h e S t a t e of Washington i n and f o r t h e County of King, a l l e g i n g breach of c o n t r a c t , r e p l e v i n , m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and tort of o u t r a g e . The c o m p l a i n t arose o u t o f an o r a l agreement between p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t i n Washington i n J u n e 1981, whereby p l a i n t i f f loaned d e f e n d a n t $15,000 a t 24 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t t o purchase a 1965 Kenworth d i e s e l t r u c k and d e f e n d a n t was to g r a n t p l a i n t i f f an oral s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t i n t h e t r u c k and repay t h e l o a n a t t h e rate of $500 p e r month. The c e r t i f i c a t e of t i t l e was i n a p p e l l a n t Murphy's name, and t h e r e was no l e a s e h o l d r e c o r d e d . P l a i n t i f f also a l l e g e s he was t o r e c e i v e t h e g r e a t e r of $350 p e r month or 10 p e r c e n t of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e t r e c e i p t s from h a u l i n g f r e i g h t w i t h t h e t r u c k . None of t h e agreement was i n w r i t i n g . Defendant paid p l a i n t i f f $1,000 and t h e n made no o t h e r payments. When p l a i n t i f f l o c a t e d d e f e n d a n t and d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k i n M i s s o u l a , Montana, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e F o u r t h 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 Missoula, a l l e g i n g b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , r e p l e v i n , m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and t o r t of o u t r a g e . T h i s c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d on J a n u a r y 20, 1982. Along w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a motion r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r and show cause why an i n j u n c t i o n pendente l i t e should n o t be i s s u e d r e s t r a i n i n g d e f e n d a n t from removing t h e t r u c k from its l o c a t i o n i n Missoula d u r i n g t h e pendency of t h i s a c t i o n , and f u r t h e r f o r an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t to a p p e a r and show c a u s e why p l a i n t i f f should n o t o b t a i n temporary p o s s e s s i o n of t h e t r u c k pending t h e outcome of t h i s a c t i o n . Following t h e show cause h e a r i n g on February 1 7 , 1982, and F e b r u a r y 22, 1982, t h e District C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e p l a i n t i f f t a k e immediate temporary p o s s e s s i o n of t h e t r u c k pending t h e outcome of t h i s a c t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d p l a i n t i f f to pay a l l o u t s t a n d i n g towing and s t o r a g e c h a r g e s on t h e t r u c k and to p o s t a $16,000 bond to i n s u r e t h e r e t u r n of t h e t r u c k i n t h e e v e n t of an a d v e r s e r u l i n g . The District Court allowed p l a i n t i f f to o p e r a t e t h e t r u c k to m i t i g a t e h i s damages and to a p p l y $500 o f any p r o f i t s to d e f e n d a n t s ' o u t s t a n d i n g o b l i g a t i o n and t o pay any amounts over $500 t o t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t to be h e l d pending t h e outcome of t h i s a c t i o n . Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e District C o u r t ' s o r d e r c l a i m i n g t h e o r d e r is a p p e a l a b l e p u r s u a n t to Rule l ( b ) , M.R.App.Civ.P. f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h e o r d e r g r a n t s an i n j u n c t i o n and d i r e c t s t h e d e l i - v e r y , t r a n s f e r o r s u r r e n d e r of p r o p e r t y . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n i s s u i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n c o n t r a r y t o Montana l a w . 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by e n t e r i n g a p r e l i m i - n a r y i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t making f i n d i n g s of f a c t or c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w or g i v i n g any s t a t e m e n t of its r e a s o n s f o r g r a n t i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n . Although two i s s u e s were r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t , t h e case can be d i s p o s e d of by answering t h e f i r s t i s s u e by v a c a t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n of g r a n t i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . While a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n may be i s s u e d t o p r o t e c t t h e p a r t i e s from damage d u r i n g pendency of t h e s u i t and m a i n t a i n t h e s t a t u s quo pending f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e c a u s e on t h e merits, P o r t e r v. K & S P a r t n e r s h i p ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- Mont . , 627 P.2d 836, h e r e t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r f a i l e d to p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s quo. I t determined s u b s t a n t i v e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s and d i d n o t follow o u r s t a t u t e s and r u l e s d i r e c t i n g t h e c o u r t to i s s u e f i n d - i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w a t t h e t i m e he i s s u e d t h e i n j u n c t i o n . See 27-19-201(4), MCA, see Rule 52 (a) , M.R.Civ.P. The p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n is vacated and t h e cause r e t u r n e d t o t h e District C o u r t . We covcur: Chief Justice M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell: I concur i n t h e r e s u l t , Y Chief J u s t i c e M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d i s s e n t i n g : I n m y opinion, t h e D i s t r i c t Court fashioned an e q u i t a b l e remedy which was n o t an injunction,gince t h e remedy was not i n j u n c t i v e f i e c o u r t ' s order i s not appealable, and I would 3 t h e r e f o r e not e n t e r t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s matter.