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

Heading: Timely Filing of the Cost Bill

Text: The condemnation case was tried by a jury from April 30, to May 3, 1979. A jury verdict in favor in the amount of $5,000.00 was rendered on May 3, 1979. On May 14, 1979, before the entry of judgment, Helehan's attorney filed a motion for determination of necessary expenses of litigation under section 70-30-306, MCA. On May 17, 1979, the State filed a motion to retax costs claimed by Helehan, upon the single ground that the cost bill was not timely filed. Judgment on the cause was not entered until May 30, 1979. The judgment granted a total award and interest to Helehan of $7,468.62, but stated that Helehan had withdrawn from the deposit in the court beforehand the sum of $23,149.50. Therefore Helehan was required to pay to the State the excess sum of $15,680.88, with interest at the rate of $2.57 per day until paid. Notice of entry of judgment was mailed by the clerk of the court to each party on May 30, 1979. The District Court overruled the objection to the timeliness of the motion for necessary litigation costs upon the ground that time has never been of the essence of any proceedings in this condemnation matter. Thereupon the court ordered payment by the State to Helehan of $3,450.00 for attorney Kermit Daniels, $2,052.00 for expert witness W.J. Everly, $2,310.77 for expert witness Mel Rowley, and $1,500.00 for Helehan's attorney Joseph C. Engel, III. The State's position is that under State, By And Through State Hwy. Com'n v. Marsh (1978), 175 Mont. 460, 575 P.2d 38, the section which controls the timeliness of filing bills of costs in condemnation cases is section 25-10-501, MCA: The party in whose favor judgment is rendered and who claims his costs must deliver to the clerk and serve upon the adverse party, within 5 days after the verdict or notice of the decision of the court or referee or, if the entry of the judgment on the verdict or decision be stayed, then before such entry is made, a memorandum of the items of his costs and necessary disbursements in the action or proceeding, which memorandum must be verified by the oath of the party, his attorney or agent, or the clerk of his attorney, stating that to the best of his knowledge and belief the items are correct and that the disbursements have been necessarily incurred in the action or proceeding. The State contends that it was too late for the filing of Helehan's motion for necessary litigation costs under the 5 days after the verdict clause of the foregoing section. In a prior case between these same parties, State, By And Through Dept. of Highways v. Helehan (1977), 171 Mont. 473, 559 P.2d 817, the Highway Department appealed from a default judgment against it taken in the District Court. The default occurred because the Department had not appealed from an assessment made by the Commissioners in the condemnation case within the thirty days required by the then applicable statute. The Department had in fact filed its appeal to the District Court thirty-four days following the Commissioners' decision. This Court held that Rule 6(a) and (e), M.R.Civ.P. had to be given effect in determining the time for filing the notice of appeal. Under those rules, a party required to take some action by virtue of papers served upon him by mail is granted three additional days to take the action, and in computing the time, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are excluded under given circumstances. On that basis, this Court set aside a default judgment of $87,742.04 against the State. The same rule that saved the State's assets from a default judgment in the prior case should apply to the other party in this case. May 3, 1979 fell on a Thursday. By excluding Saturdays and Sundays, and granting three additional business days because of the service by mail, the final day for service of Helehan's motion did not occur here until May 15, 1979. Therefore, his motion filed on May 14, 1979 was timely, if we assume that section 25-10-501, MCA applies, as the State contends. Whether section 25-10-201, MCA is the statute governing the time for filing a motion for necessary expenses of litigation under section 70-30-306, MCA, is debatable. Attorney fees are not ordinarily recoverable as costs, Callant v. Federal Land Bank of Spokane (1979), Mont., 593 P.2d 1036, 1039, 36 St.Rep. 824, 829. With respect to witness fees, section 25-10-201, MCA, defining recoverable costs speaks of legal fees of witnesses which of course, would delimit the fees that might be paid to expert witnesses to the statutory amounts. The provisions of section 70-30-306, MCA, came about because of the 1972 Mont. Const., Art. II, § 29, which requires necessary expenses of litigation to be awarded when the private property owner prevails. Marsh, supra, should be recognized for its limited application insofar as recovery of such expenses of litigation is concerned. When the court there said that a statutory procedure for hearing arguments on claimed costs existed in section 25-10-501, MCA, it was referring to the procedure for determining items of costs other than attorney fees. 575 P.2d at 43. This Court was merely suggesting a method of procedure for determining necessary costs of litigation, which procedure is otherwise unprovided for in our statutes and which after all is not very different in aspect from any other factual dispute that must be settled by a court upon hearing. If we were to regard the motion in this case to determine the necessary expenses of litigation to be a bill of costs, then perforce we would have to hold that the State here could not quarrel as to any item of claimed costs because its motion to retax the costs was limited simply to whether the filing of the motion was timely. Gahagan v. Gugler (1935), 100 Mont. 599, 606, 52 P.2d 150, 154. We note for the attention of the legislature that legislation outlining procedures to be utilized in determining necessary expenses of litigation under section 70-30-306, MCA, would be helpful for the State and for private property owners.