LOVELY LAUBACH v BURROUGHS CORP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13215 'IN THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1976 ORVIS C. LOVELY and D N L R. LAUBACH, O AD P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vs RURROUGHS CORPORATION, a c o r p o r a t i o n , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C h a r l e s B.Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : J o s e p h s o n and F r e d r i c k s , Big Timber, Montana Conrad B. F r e d r i c k s a r g u e d , Big Timber, Montana F o r Respondent: Henson Robert Landoe Joseph and T u l l y , M i n n e a p o l i s , Minnesota Henson a r g u e d , M i n n e a p o l i s , Minnesota and Gary, Bozeman, Montana B Gary a p p e a r e d , Bozeman, Montana . Submitted: ~ ei d e d : c F i l e d : APK 3 - '91b March 1, 1976 ~ P 4 1976 H M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f s from t h e a c t i o n t a k e n by t h e d i s t r i c t , Park County, p u r s u a n t t o o u r e a r l i e r o p i n i o n and remand i n Lovely and Laubach v . Burroughs C o r p o r a t i o n , 165 Mont. 209, 527 P.2d 557, 31 St.Rep. 824. Following remand t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g and r e c e i v e d a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g o n e i t e m of damages, v i z . p l a i n t i f f s ' l o s s on t h e s a l e o f t h e i r L i v i n g s t o n accounting p r a c t i c e . Thereafter the d i s t r i c t court entered the following: "ADDITIONAL FINDINGS O FACT AND JUDGMENT F " T h i s c a u s e was remanded by t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t on October 21, 1974, w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o r e c o n s i d e r F i n d i n g o f F a c t No. 1 3 and t h e i t e m of 'Loss of s a l e of L i v i n g s t o n b u s i n e s s ' c o n t a i n e d i n p a r a g r a p h 4 o f t h e C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law, and a l s o t o c o n s i d e r t h e Motion t o Re-tax C o s t s . "On A p r i l 4 , 1975, t h e C o u r t h e a r d f u r t h e r t e s t i m o n y on t h e i t e m of damages. Evidence upon t h e p a r t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f r e a c h e s a h i g h o f $48,966.00, and e v i d e n c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t r e a c h e s a low of $17,398.00. No c o n v i n c i n g r e a s o n s a p p e a r t o t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r sale w a s a f o r c e d s a l e and f u r t h e r m o r e t h e C o u r t i s n o t o v e r l y convinced with t h e testimony of e i t h e r s i d e considering t h i s i t e m o f damages, t h e r e f o r e , "IT I S ORDERED t h e o r i g i n a l Amended F i n d i n g s o f F a c t and C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law s h o u l d s t a n d a s o r i g i n a l l y filed. "IT I S FURTHER ORDERED t h a t t h e i t e m i n p l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum of C o s t s t o t a l i n q $603.28 be reduced and a l l o w e d i n t h e amount o f $117.18. "Each p a r t y t o b e a r t h e i r own c o s t s on t h i s a p p e a l . "Dated t h i s 4 t h day of Aug.ust, 1975." P l a i n t i f f s now a p p e a l from t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n and from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o amend it i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h p l a i n t i f f s ' request. P l a i n t i f f s l i s t t h e following i s s u e s f o r review i n t h e i r a p p e a l which w e w i l l summarize a s f o l l o w s : (1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n r e c e i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e f o l l o w i n g remand? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n f i x i n g t h e amount of damages f o r t h e l o s s on t h e s a l e of t h e L i v i n g s t o n a c c o u n t i n g b u s i n e s s of p l a i n t i f f s ? ( 3 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n t a x i n g t h e c o s t s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e h e a r i n g f o l l o w i n g remand a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f s ? W h o l d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t commit e r r o r i n holde i n g a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g and r e c e i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e o v e r t h e o b j e c t i o n s of p l a i n t i f f s c o n c e r n i n g t h e l o s s on t h e sale of p l a i n t i f f s ' Livingston accounting p r a c t i c e . This matter w a s l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n o u r o p i n i o n o r d e r i n g remand. W e simply remanded " * * * f o r a r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e amount of damages a r i s i n g from t h e l o s s on t h e s a l e of t h e L i v i n g s t o n b u s i n e s s " w i t h o u t d i r e c t i o n o r r e s t r i c t i o n on t h e method t o be u t i l i z e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Where a c a s e i s remanded under such circumstances, it i s f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o determine i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n whether t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e it i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h i s p u r p o s e o r whether a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be t a k e n t o s u p p l e ment t h e r e c o r d . & Company, Wyo 460, 97 N.W.2d 80 N.W.2d S Creek Ranch, I n c . , . , a c o r p o r a t i o n v . Monier 518 P.2d 930; S o k e l v . N i c k o l i , 356 Mich. 1; F u l l e r t o n Lumber Co. v . Torborg, 274 W i s c . 478, 461. W e f u r t h e r hold t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d a second t i m e i n f i x i n g t h e amount of p l a i n t i f f s ' damages f o r t h e i r l o s s on t h e s a l e of t h e i r a c c o u n t i n g b u s i n e s s i n L i v i n g s t o n . A t the o r i g i n a l t r i a l t h e o n l y t e s t i m o n y on t h i s i t e m o f damages w a s t h a t of M r . P y f e r who f i x e d t h e r a n g e of damages between $28,801 and $48,960. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i x e d t h e damages on t h i s i t e m a t $3,268. W e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s i t e m of damages. a t i o n , supra. Lovely & Laubach v . Burroughs Corpor- Upon remand t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d a n o t h e r h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h i s i t e m of damages. A t t h i s hearing t h r e e expert witnesses on t h e v a l u a t i o n of an accounting p r a c t i c e t e s t i f i e d . Mr. P y f e r ' s t e s t i m o n y was s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s h e gave a t t h e t r i a l . Mr. Broeker's testimony, i n essence, w a s t h a t t h e buyer of p l a i n t i f f s ' L i v i n g s t o n a c c o u n t i n g p r a c t i c e p a i d $1,352 more t h a n i t s v a l u e s o p l a i n t i f f s ' a g e on t h e sale. Mr. s u f f e r e d no dam- Anderson's testimony w a s t h a t t h e s a l e p r i c e was a b o u t r i g h t s o p l a i n t i f f s s u f f e r e d no damage on t h e s a l e of t h e i r a c c o u n t i n g p r a c t i c e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e r e u p o n h e l d t h a t i t s o r i g i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s i t e m of damages a t $3,268 s h o u l d s t a n d . This i s incredible! The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i x e d t h e damages i n a n i d e n t i c a l amount down t o t h e l a s t d o l l a r on t h e b a s i s of two d i f f e r e n t r e c o r d s . The amount o f damages was o u t s i d e t h e r a n g e of any t e s t i m o n y o r e v i d e n c e . There i s s i m p l y n o t h i n g i n t h e record e i t h e r a t t h e t r i a l o r i n t h e subsequent hearing t h a t s u p p o r t s a n award o f $3,268 f o r p l a i n t i f f s ' l o s s on t h e s a l e of t h e i r Livingston accounting p r a c t i c e . A c c o r d i n g l y w e v a c a t e t h e "ADDITIONAL FINDINGS O FACT F AND JUDGMENT" of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d a t e d August 4 , 1975. We remand a g a i n t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r prompt d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f damages f o r p l a i n t i f f s ' l o s s on t h e s a l e o f t h e i r L i v i n g s t o n accounting p r a c t i c e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o make t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s of t h e r e c o r d p r e s e n t l y b e f o r e it without a d d i t i o n a l hearing o r r e c e p t i o n of f u r t h e r evidence. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d t h a t a f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h i s i t e m o f damages w i t h i n t h e r a n g e of t h e e v i d e n c e , t o r e t a x c o s t s a c c o r d i n g l y , and e n t e r judgment i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n and o u r p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a u s e . Justice - 4 - s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.