Opinion ID: 884360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Did the District Court abuse its discretion in awarding damages to the Houdashelts under the contract?

Text: Lastly, Lutes argues that the Houdashelts were not entitled to the monetary damages awarded to them for past-due payments and clean-up costs. In so contending, Lutes makes numerous arguments based on a wide variety of broad contractual theories. He asserts that the contract violated public policy; the object of the contract was unlawful; and the contract was void. In making these arguments, Lutes cites to no relevant authority except the Montana statutes setting forth the cited theories. Again, his arguments are based exclusively upon the presumption that the sump system was illegal and that the asserted illegality somehow excused his mismanagement of the business. Suffice it to say that this Court has reviewed the District Court's factual findings and legal conclusions in detail, and finds no error therein. Affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and NELSON, TRIEWEILER and REGNIER, JJ., concur.