Opinion ID: 888046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Clarks' Emotional Distress Counterclaim

Text: ¶ 59 Clarks individually allege on cross-appeal that Byrums' actions in regards to the Ditch and this litigation have caused them serious and severe emotional distress. Clarks assert that substantial evidence exists on the record to support their claim. We note that Respondents did not request emotional distress damages in their collective prayer for relief in the original counterclaim against Byrums. Clarks, however, in their individual amended counterclaim, request special damages in their prayer for relief. Accordingly, we must determine whether emotional distress damages are special damages for the purposes of Clarks' cross-appeal. ¶ 60 Special damages are the natural but not necessary result of the wrong or breach; whereas general damages are damages the law would impute as the natural, necessary and logical consequence of the wrong or breach. Purington v. Sound West, 173 Mont. 106, 111-12, 566 P.2d 795, 798 (1977). Clarks have failed to cite any authority that would persuade us that emotional distress damages are the natural, necessary and logical consequence of Byrums' alleged interference with Clarks' rights to the Ditch. Thus, by default, Clarks' claimed emotional distress damages are special damages. ¶ 61 Under M.R. Civ. P. 9(g), Clarks were required to specifically state special damages in their pleadings. This Rule provides that [w]hen items of special damage are claimed, they shall be specifically stated. Because they did not specifically state their request for emotional distress damages, as required by M.R. Civ. P. 9(g), Clarks failed to plead such damages properly. That does not dispose of this issue, however. ¶ 62 At trial Clarks raised the issue of emotional distress and Byrums cross-examined Robert Clark on this issue. Although Byrums objected to much of Mr. Clark's testimony as being outside the pretrial order (discussed above), the record reveals that that Byrums did not specifically object to Clark's testimony regarding emotional distress. ¶ 63 M.R. Civ. P. 15(b) provides, in pertinent part: Amendments to conform to the evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to so amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. (Emphasis added). Clarks raised the issue of emotional distress during trial and Byrums cross-examined Mr. Clark on the issue. Thus, Clarks' emotional distress claim was tried by the implied consent of the parties and should thus be treated in all respects as if [it] had been raised in the pleadings. M.R. Civ. P. 15(b). Although there is no indication in the record that Clarks made a motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence regarding emotional distress damages elicited at trial, a failure to move to amend the pleadings does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. M.R. Civ. P. 15(b). ¶ 64 Clarks' claim of emotional distress having been tried, the District Court was required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in respect to this claim. The court entered no findings of fact or conclusions of law on Clarks' claim; the court simply and summarily dismissed it. Accordingly, and for the same reasons previously discussed, we conclude that the District Court's order dismissing Clarks' emotional distress counterclaim must be vacated. We remand this issue with instructions that the District Court reconsider Clarks' counterclaim and enter appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon.