Opinion ID: 877126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rowley and Everly

Text: Mel Rowley, a draftsman and mining expert, was hired on behalf of Helehan by his attorneys. He prepared exhibits for use in the case but was never called as a witness. Rowley presented his summary of time spent in consultation with Helehan's counsel and in working on the case. The State's objection to Rowley's fee is that he never testified as a witness, nor did he meet issues relating to the case at the time of the trial, and that his name was not disclosed through the ordinary discovery process as a witness. Walter Everly is a consulting mining engineer in Butte. His expertise was required by Helehan to prepare for cross-examination of the State's witnesses, as well as to establish the value of Helehan's claim. He also submitted at the fee hearing, a summary statement showing the hours he had worked on preparation of his testimony and his research in obtaining records from the Highway Commission and the library at the mining college in Butte. The State's objection to Everly's fee is that although he was disclosed as a witness, the State was not permitted to get his deposition prior to trial or to discover what his opinions were prior to trial. The District Court found that the fees billed to Helehan by the expert witnesses were reasonable and ordered payment by the State. Of course, the reasonableness of the fees charged by expert witnesses is a matter for determination in the discretion of the District Court, and where substantial credible evidence exists to support the findings of the District Court, they may not be set aside by us unless clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. We do not find any such abuse of discretion here, nor do we find that the amounts awarded are clearly erroneous. As for the disclosure of witnesses, the record shows that on April 30, 1979, a proposed pretrial order by Helehan's counsel was acknowledged by counsel for the Highway Department wherein it appears that Helehan would offer three witnesses at the upcoming trial, including Mel Rowley. The record does not reflect any complaint of prejudice on the part of the State by reason of the names of any witnesses supplied to it nor does the State complain of surprise in the record at or about the time of the jury trial, nor were any motions for continuance made with respect to such witnesses. It is not necessary that the expert actually testify in order for the landowner to recover the cost of his expertise. The 1972 Mont.Const., Art. II, § 29, contemplates full reimbursement to the landowner of his cost of litigation, and section 70-30-306, MCA, defining necessary expenses of litigation, includes exhibit costs as a necessary expense. Exhibit costs would certainly include the costs necessary to produce the exhibit. We find no error in the allowance of the expert witness fees for Rowley and Everly to Helehan.