Opinion ID: 877417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the tenant is entitled to attorney fees incurred in enforcing the lease agreement and attorneys fees foreclosing the mechanics lien

Text: In its original findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court held that (1) the tenant was entitled to attorney fees pursuant to section 93-8601.1, R.C.M. 1947, for enforcing the covenants of the lease, and (2) that the landlords were entitled, under section 93-8614, R.C.M. 1947 (now section 71-3-124, MCA), to recover reasonable costs of defending against the mechanics' lien pursuant to section 93-8614, R.C.M. 1947. But later, the trial court ordered that each party bear its own costs and attorney fees. We reverse this order. The tenant is entitled to the reasonable costs of attorney fees incurred in establishing the validity of his lease. By demanding, unjustifiably, a drastically increased rental payment from the tenant and by taking legal action to force the tenant to quit the premises, the landlords refused to recognize the existence of the lease. The tenant was forced to sue to determine the validity of the lease, and section 28-3-704, MCA, provides that the tenant is entitled to attorney fees so incurred. Because the original lease agreement was entered into before the effective date (July 1, 1971) of section 28-3-704, MCA, counsel for the landlords contends that this statute does not apply here. Undoubtedly confusion exists as to the effective date provision. See Belgrade State Bank v. Swainson (1978), 176 Mont. 444, 578 P.2d 1166; Belgrade State Bank v. Swainson (1977), 172 Mont. 350, 564 P.2d 174. But we need not reconsider that issue here. The date of the agreement at issue is the date on which the lease agreement was renewed, March 3, 1973. The statute was then in effect. Because the landlords have asserted that the tenant did not properly exercise his option to renew the lease, the tenant was forced to sue to establish the validity of his option. Section 28-3-704, MCA, applies. We have previously rejected the landlords' argument that this statute does not apply to a party who started the lawsuit. Compton v. Alcorn (1976), 171 Mont. 230, 235, 557 P.2d 292. Because we have ruled that the tenant had a valid mechanics' lien, the landlords are not entitled to attorney fees for defeating a mechanics' lien. Rather, the tenant is entitled to attorney fees for the costs incurred in establishing the validity of the mechanics' lien. See section 71-3-124, MCA. The record does not establish the exact amount of attorney fees incurred by the tenant and therefore we must remand for further proceedings to establish the proper amount. The tenant is entitled to recover the reasonable attorney fees incurred in establishing the validity of the lease and in foreclosing on his mechanics' lien. This includes also the attorney fees incurred in presenting this appeal. The District Court judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. HASWELL, C.J., and DALY, WEBER and SHEEHY, JJ., concur.