HELLER v OSBURNSEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13250 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1976 LESTER J. HELLER, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, ARTHUR S. OSBURNSEN and LUCILLE F. OSBURNSEN, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable LeRoy I,. McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellants : Johnson and F o s t e r , Lewistown, Montana Robert Johnson a r g u e d , Lewistown, Montana F o r Respondent: Dockery and P a r r i s h , Lewistown, Montana Bradley B. P a r r i s h a r g u e d , Lewistown, Montana Submitted: March 3 , 1976 Decided : &"C! 12 lQJF PER CURIAM: T h i s i s a motion t o d i s m i s s a p p e l l a n t s ' a p p e a l from t h e d e n i a l o f a motion t o q u a s h a w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n , i s s u e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , F e r g u s County. T h i s c a s e h a s been b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on two p r e v i o u s occasions: Heller v . Osburnsen, 162 Mont. 1 8 2 , 510 P.2d ( H e l l e r I ) ; and Heller v . Osburnsen, 1032, 32 St.Rep. Mont . , 13 541 P.2d 1066 ( H e l l e r 11). Because t h e f a c t s of t h e case w e r e s e t o u t i n t h e p r e v i o u s Heller d e c i s i o n s , it i s n o t necessary t o again set o u t i n d e t a i l t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n . t h e l a s t a p p e a l M r s . Heller h a s d i e d , t h u s M r . Since Heller r e m a i n s the sole plaintiff. T h i s i n v o l v e d a c t i o n a r i s e s o u t of t h e s a l e of r a n c h p r o p e r t i e s by H e l l e r t o Osburnsens. The f i r s t a p p e a l b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , d e c i d e d May 7 , 1973, i n v o l v e d a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n b r o u g h t by Heller t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s and d u t i e s a s t o the ranch s a l e transaction. judgment w a s a f f i r m e d i n Heller I . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t I n t h e second a p p e a l , d e c i d e d O c t o b e r 30, 1975, t h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l a c c o u n t i n g approved by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and found t h a t s u c h a c c o u n t ing d i d n o t v i o l a t e due process, ( H e l l e r 11). The a c c o u n t i n g a f f i r m e d i n H e l l e r I1 found Osburnsens w e r e l i a b l e t o Heller i n t h e amount o f $16,831.42, together with i n t e r e s t on t h e sum of $14,586.03 a t t h e r a t e o f 5 1 / 2 % p e r annum from J a n u a r y 1, 1974, u n t i l p a i d . I n November 1975, H e l l e r ' s a t t o r n e y s e n t a l e t t e r t o O s b u r n s e n s ' a t t o r n e y demanding t h e payment o f $23,608.42. This amount i n c l u d e d t h e $16,831.42 awarded t o H e l l e r by t h e September 11, 1974 a c c o u n t i n g , p l u s i n t e r e s t of $1,604.46 a s d i r e c t e d i n t h e a c c o u n t i n g , p l u s underpayments on t h e r a n c h p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t f o r 1974-1975 t o t a l i n g $5,174.37. I n response t o t h i s letter t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s had a d i s c u s s i o n r e s u l t i n g i n O s b u r n s e n s ' a t t o r n e y drawing up a s t i p u l a t i o n , which was s i g n e d by b o t h attorneys. The s t i p u l a t i o n p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e b e g i n n i n g d e f e r r e d b a l a n c e o f t h e p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t w a s $84,850 and r e q u e s t e d t h e escrow a g e n t t o compute e a c h a n n u a l payment t o date, with i n t e r e s t . The escrow a g e n t w a s a s k e d t o d e d u c t from e a c h payment t h e amount a c t u a l l y p a i d by Osburnsens. Osburnsens would t h e n pay Heller t h e sum of a l l s h o r t a g e s , p l u s i n t e r e s t from t h e a c t u a l s h o r t a g e d a t e . The escrow a g e n t , F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of Lewistown, s t a t e d it c o u l d n o t comply w i t h t h e s t i p u l a t i o n r e q u e s t s . Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y w r o t e t h e bank a s k i n g f o r t h e payments a c t u a l l y made by them, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e b a n k ' s r e c o r d s , and t h e payment s c h e d u l e according t o t h e bank's records. Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y asked f o r t h e bank r e c o r d s f o r t h e payments a s a c t u a l l y a p p l i e d , n o t a s t h e y s h o u l d have been a p p l i e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment and a c c o u n t i n g , b o t h of which w e r e a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t . O s b u r n s e n s ' a t t o r n e y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e bank r e c o r d s t o r e a c h t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e y owed Heller $152.00, t h e $23,608.42 demanded by H e l l e r . rather than On November 20, 1975, Osburn- s e n s ' a t t o r n e y o f f e r e d t h i s amount a s f u l l s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e a c t i o n and d e b t . On November 2 1 , 1975, H e l l e r ' s a t t o r n e y d e c l a r e d t h e o f f e r o f $152.00 a n i n s u l t and i n d i c a t e d h e c o n s i d e r e d t h e s t i p u l a t i o n v o i d and o f no f o r c e o r e f f e c t ; c l a i m i n g O s b u r n s e n s ' a t t o r n e y w a s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e bank r e c o r d s a s though h e had won both appeals t o t h i s Court. A s i x t y d a y n o t i c e and demand p u r - suant t o t h e d e f a u l t c l a u s e of t h e ranch purchase c o n t r a c t w a s included i n t h a t letter. On December 29, 1975, t h e c l e r k o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t issued an execution d i r e c t e d t o t h e county s h e r i f f , asking t h e s h e r i f f t o l e v y o n O s b u r n s e n s ' p r o p e r t y i n t h e amount o f $23,610.25, plus costs. Osburnsens' a t t o r n e y f i l e d a motion t o quash t h e e x e c u t i o n o n December 30, 1975. On t h e same d a y h e s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t and t h e s h e r i f f warning t h a t i f t h e w r i t w e r e found t o b e w r o n g f u l l y i s s u e d , O s b u r n s e n s would h o l d e a c h res p o n s i b l e f o r any r e s u l t i n g damages. On December 31, 1975, H e l l e r ' s a t t o r n e y f i l e d a n answer t o t h e motion t o quash. On J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1976, t h e s h e r i f f e x e c u t e d on O s b u r n s e n s ' bank a c c o u n t i n t h e amount o f $23,610.25. On J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1976, a f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o q u a s h , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o q u a s h on t h e g r o u n d s t h e s t i p u l a t i o n was ambiguous and t h e bank o f f i c e r a p p a r e n t l y r e f u s e d t o t r y t o c a r r y it o u t . Osburnsens a p p e a l e d t h i s o r d e r on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1976. A p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t a y e x e c u t i o n on J a n u a r y 21, 1976, A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h i s m o t i o n r e s u l t i n g i n a s t a y o r d e r and p r o v i d i n g t h e money i n t h e s h e r i f f ' s hands be deemed a s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r t a k i n g f o r s u p e r s e d e a s and c o s t s on a p p e a l . Respondent r a i s e d two i s s u e s on h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s C o u r t . I. A r e t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n a p p e l l a n t s ' a p p e a l res judicata? 2. Was a p p e l l a n t s ' a p p e a l t a k e n w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l o r r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s , b u t f o r p u r p o s e s o f d e l a y o n l y , whereby dama g e s s h o u l d be a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t s p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , M.R.App.Civ.P.? T h i s C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d , i n t h e two p r i o r d e c i s i o n s i n t h i s m a t t e r , t h a t a p p e l l a n t s owe r e s p o n d e n t $16,831.42, plus interest. Approximately $5,000.00 i s due r e s p o n d e n t a s under- payments on t h e r a n c h p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e September 11, 1974 a c c o u n t i n g , a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t i n Heller 11. N s t i p u l a t i o n o r agreement s i g n e d by t h e r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s o c a n change t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , it e x i s t s u n t i l m o d i f i e d , amended, o r o v e r r u l e d by t h i s C o u r t . The award t o r e s p o n d e n t i s res j u d i c a t a . The g e n e r a l r u l e s f o r res j u d i c a t a a r e s e t o u t i n 46 Am J u r 2d, Judgments, "A f i n a l judgment on t h e m e r i t s , r e n d e r e d by a c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n , i s c o n c l u s i v e a s t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r p r i v i e s , and a s t o them c o n s t i t u t e s a n a b s o l u t e b a r t o a s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e same c l a i m , demand, and c a u s e of a c t i o n * * *. The judgment p u t s a n end t o t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n which c a u s e c a n n o t a q a i n be b r o u q h t i n t o l i t i q a t i o n between t h e p a r t i e s upon any ground o r f o r any purpose whatever, i n t h e a b s e n c e o f some f a c t o r i n v a l i d a t i n g t h e judgment." (Emphasis added.) The c r u x of a p p e l l a n t s ' argument on a p p e a l , i s t h a t t h e w r i t of e x e c u t i o n was i m p r o p e r l y i s s u e d as t h e amount d u e res p o n d e n t from a p p e l l a n t s was s e t t l e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e s t i p u l a tion. While paying l i p s e r v i c e t o t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , and t h e a c t i o n s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h i s C o u r t , a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y c o n t e n d s t h i s m a t t e r h a s been s e t t l e d f o r $152.00, thereby wholly ignoring t h i s C o u r t ' s a f f i r m a n c e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment and a c c o u n t ing. A s t i p u l a t i o n cannot i n t e r f e r e with t h e d u t i e s , functions, o r d e c i s i o n s of t h i s C o u r t , o r any o t h e r c o u r t . S t i p u l a t i o n s , §4 and S 1 1 . 7 3 Am J u r 2d, Regardless of t h e language of t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , and a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e o f , a p p e l l a n t s owe r e s p o n d e n t t h e amounts d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e September 11, 1974 a c c o u n t i n g , a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t , H e l l e r 11. Any s t i p u l a t i o n which i s i n t e r p r e t e d a s s e t t l i n g a v a l i d judgment i n e x c e s s o f $16,000 f o r t h e sum o f $152 i s v o i d a s being absurd. The s t i p u l a t i o n i s o b v i o u s l y ambiguous o r s u c h an a b s u r d i t y c o u l d n o t r e s u l t t h e r e b y . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y found i t s o . A p p e l l a n t s a l s o r a i s e a q u e s t i o n of v i o l a t i o n of due process i n t h e i r appeal. W e f i n d no v i o l a t i o n of d u e p r o c e s s a s s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s were f o l l o w e d , and no p r e j u d i c e res u l t e d t o a p p e l l a n t s , due t o t h e h e a r i n g which was a f f o r d e d them. W e need n o t go i n t o t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e w r i t of exe- c u t i o n e x c e p t t o s a y a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n i s a p r o p e r means of e n f o r c i n g a money judgment. S e c t i o n 93-5805, Nepstad v . E a s t Chicago O i l Assn., Inc., R.C.M. 1947; 96 Mont. 1 8 3 , 29 P.2d A p p e l l a n t s q u e s t i o n t h e $5,000.00 e x c e s s i n t h e e x e c u t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t speak t o t h i s i s s u e i n i t s d e n i a l of t h e motion t o quash. An e x c e s s i v e judgment i s n o t p e r s e v o i d , it i s m e r e l y v o i d a b l e u n l e s s f r a u d u l e n t i n t e n t i s p r o v e n . The p r o p e r p r a c t i c e t o remedy t h i s matter i s a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e e x c e s s , n o t move t o q u a s h t h e w r i t . 33 C.J.S. Executions A p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y i s a t t e m p t i n g t o u s e a n a p p e a l of t h e d e n i a l o f a motion t o q u a s h a w r i t of e x e c u t i o n a s a v e h i c l e t o once a g a i n r a i s e a q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h i s C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i n H e l l e r I and H e l l e r 11. I n L i b i n v . H u f f i n e , 124 Mont. 361, 363, 224 P.2d 1 4 4 , t h i s Court s t a t e d : "Where a s h e r e a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t h a s u n q u a l i f i e d l y a f f i r m e d a judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , it would o b v i o u s l y and u n n e c e s s a r i l y p r o t r a c t l i t i g a t i o n t o a l l o w f u r t h e r o r s u c c e s s i v e a p p e a l s from t h e judgment s o a f f i r m e d . Such s u c c e s s i v e a p p e a l s i n f a c t would be a p p e a l s a t t e m p t e d t o be t a k e n from t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i t s e l f . " See a l s o , Gray v. B o h a r t , 1 3 1 Mont. 522, 312 P.2d 529. In t h e i n s t a n t appeal, appellants' attorney i s i n d i r e c t l y a p p e a l i n g t h e two e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s i n a n a p p a r e n t a t t e m p t t o d e l a y payment of t h e awarded sums t o r e s p o n d e n t . Such a n a p p e a l i s f r i v o l o u s and w i t h o u t m e r i t . T h i s i s a p r o p e r c a s e t o g r a n t a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a s f r i v o l o u s and w i t h o u t m e r i t . Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P., states: "Damages f o r a p p e a l w i t h o u t m e r i t . I f t h e supreme c o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d from t h e r e c o r d and t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l , t h a t t h e same w a s t a k e n without s u b s t a n t i a l o r reasonable grounds, b u t a p p a r e n t l y f o r p u r p o s e s of d e l a y o n l y , such dama g e s may be a s s e s s e d on d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f a s under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e deemed p r o p e r . " I n Weinheimer v . S c o t t , 143 Mont. 243, 388 P.2d 790, a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y i n t h e i n s t a n t case, w e quoted L i b i n v. H u f f i n e , s u p r a , w i t h a p p r o v a l and imposed damages o f $500 i n f a v o r of r e s p o n d e n t . These damages w e r e imposed on a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y f o r a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l . These damages w e r e t h e c o s t of t r a v e l , r e s e a r c h , and p r e p a r a t i o n t o answer t h e f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l . I n Farmers S t a t e Bank of Conrad v . I v e r s o n and Bouma, 1 6 2 Mont. 130, 1 3 3 , 509 P.2d 839, t h i s C o u r t a s s e s s e d damages o f $1,000 a s a " r e s t r a i n t on t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f p e t i t i o n e r s and appellants." The motion of r e s p o n d e n t t o d i s m i s s a p p e l l a n t s t a p p e a l i s hereby g r a n t e d . Damages under Rule 32 a r e a s s e s s e d i n t h e amount of $1,000. Honorable W. W. of M r . L e s s l e y , d i s t r i c t judge, Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n . s a t i n place

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.