FIRST SECURITY BANK v THOLKES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13051 I N THE SUPREME C TR O THE STATE O MONTANA OJT F F 1975 FIRST SECURITY BANK O BOZEMAN, F formerly known a s S e c u r i t y Bank and T r u s t Company of Bozeman, a Montana Corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, A N L J. THOLKES, R OD Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack Shans trom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Bolinger and Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana H. A, Bolinger argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Morrow, Nash and Sedivy, Bozeman, Montana Edmund P. Sedivy argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : MP,$ 3 G 1.;TS ~ e c e m b e r9 , 1975 3 8 1976 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from a summary judgment e n t e r e d i n an a c t i o n on a promissory n o t e i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Hon. Jack D. Shanstrom, p r e s i d i n g , r u l e d t h e defendant Arnold J. Tholkes was indebted t o p l a i n t i f f S e c u r i t y Bank and T r u s t Company of Bozeman i n t h e amount of $4,372.00, a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount o f $1,000,00, and c o s t s o f t h e a c t i o n . From t h e summary judgment, defendant: appeals. I n J u l y 1971, Arnold J. Tholkes (defendant) obtained from t h e S e c u r i t y Bank and T r u s t Company of Bozeman, (Bank), a loan t o b e used f o r t h e purchas,e of a used automobile, home improvements and t o pay some miscellaneous b i l l s . t h e loan t o defendant on J u l y 22, 1971. The Bank made Defendant executed an i n s t a l l m e n t n o t e i n t h e amount of $6,533.40, t o be r e p a i d monthly i n payments of $108.89 f o r 60 mbnths (5 y e a r s ) and was signed by defendant and h i s w i f e , Lovena M. Tholkes. The n o t e f u r t h e r provided t h a t any balance remaining upon m a t u r i t y o r upon d e f a u l t would draw i n t e r e s t a t t h e r a t e of 9% per annum. A l i f e insurance p o l i c y on t h e l i f e of defendant was a l s o obtained a t t h i s time and t h e premium added i n t o t h e amount o f t h e i n s t a l l m e n t n o t e . A s s e c u r i t y f o r repayment defendant and h i s w i f e signed a UCC S e c u r i t y Agreement d a t e d J u l y 25, 1971. It d e s c r i b e d t h e used c a r (a 1967 P o n t i a c ) and a r e n t a l home i n Belgrade, Montana, owned by defendant, presumably where t h e home improvements were t o be made. A l i e n was f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e automobile w i t h t h e r e g i s t r a r of motor v e h i c l e s , Deer Lodge, and a UCC Financing Statement was f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r , G a l l a t i n County, describing t h e r e n t a l property. The r e c o r d o f payments t o t h e Bank by defendant, a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e ~ a n k ' sl e d g e r , r e v e a l s t h a t defendant was g r a n t e d e x t e n s i o n s o f payments on two o c c a s i o n s . A t the date t h i s action w a s f i l e d , o n l y 18 of 32 r e q u i r e d payments had been made. On March 1 3 , 1974, a complaint was f i l e d by t h e Bank a l l e g i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t owed t h e Bank $3,591.33, as t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e o f t h e promissory n o t e , p l u s a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t a t t h e r a t e o f 9% p e r annum from t h e d a t e o f March 1 2 , 1974. p l a i n t a l s o asked f o r $1,000.00 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s . The com- A t t h e same t i m e t h e Bank f i l e d a w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t on d e f e n d a n t ' s r e n t a l p r o p e r t y i n Belgrade. Defendant by answer a d m i t t e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e n o t e b u t d e n i e d any b a l a n c e due and owing. Defendant c o u n t e r c l a i m e d (1) t h a t t h e r a t e of i n t e r e s t on t h e l o a n was u s u r i o u s and d e f e n d a n t w a s e n t i t l e d t o t w i c e t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t he had p a i d t o t h e Bank; (2) t h a t t h e f i n a n c i n g statement c o n s t i t u t e d s l a n d e r o f t i t l e upon t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r e a l p r o p e r t y , c l a i m i n g $5,000.00 a c t u a l damages and $10,000 p u n i t i v e damages; (3) t h a t t h e ~ a n k ' sf a i l u r e t o s e c u r e l i f e i n s u r a n c e on t h e w i f e f o r t h e n o t e was wrongful and d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o $5,000.00 damages. I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were t a k e n from b o t h p a r t i e s ; d e f e n d a n t ' s d e p o s i t i o n was t a k e n ; a h e a r i n g w a s h e l d and e x h i b i t s were o f f e r e d and a d m i t t e d . The Bank f i l e d a motion f o r summary judgment and memorandum i n s u p p o r t , wherein t h e Bank claimed t h a t i n t h e comp l a i n t i t made a m i s t a k e a s t o t h e amount now owed by d e f e n d a n t . The Bank claimed i t was, i n f a c t , owed $3,957.70. On March 24, 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d summary judgment d e c r e e i n g t h a t t h e documents b e f o r e t h e c o u r t "show t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o Judgment as a m a t t e r o f law The c o u r t t h e n awarded t h e Bank $3,957.70, 9: 9: *." p l u s a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t of $414.30, p l u s a t t o r n e y f e e s o f $1,000.00. Defendant a p p e a l s and p r e s e n t s f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w four issues: 1. Whether t h e i n t e r e s t charged on t h i s l o a n w a s u s u r i o u s and whether t h e Bank claimed t h e c o r r e c t amount a s due and owing? 2. Whether t h e f i l i n g o f t h e f i n a n c i n g s t a t e m e n t con- s t i t u t e d a s l a n d e r o f t i t l e upon d e f e n d a n t ' s r e a l p r o p e r t y ? 3. Whether t h e Bank w r o n g f u l l y f a i l e d t o o b t a i n l i f e i n s u r a n c e on d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e , s i n c e d e c e a s e d ? 4. Whether t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s were r e a s o n a b l e and properly allowed? W should keep i n mind t h a t t h e l o a n h e r e was a n i n s t a l l m e n t e l o a n provided f o r under t h e terms o f s e c t i o n 5-527, R.C.M. 1947. T h i s s t a t u t e p e r m i t s c h a r g i n g a r a t e of i n t e r e s t i n e x c e s s o f 10% p e r annum on i n s t a l l m e n t l o a n s and r e c e i v i n g t h e i n t e r e s t i n advance. The i n t e r e s t i s added t o t h e p r i n c i p a l amount o f t h e n o t e and t h e t o t a l amount d i v i d e d i n t o t h e a g r e e d number o f e q u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s . The n o t e i n i s s u e h e r e was i n t h e amount o f $6,533.40 and b r e a k s down a s : of ...........$ 4,500.00 a) P r i n c i p a l , t h e sum b) L i f e i n s u r a n c e premium on t h e l i f e o f Arnold J. Tholkes ....... ....................... c) Filing fee d) Precalculated i n t e r e s t charges Total.. 244.64 10.00 ... 1,778.76 ......... $6,533.40. Defendant would have t h e u s e o f $4,500, b u t would make monthly i n s t a l l m e n t payments o f $108.89 f o r 60 months (5 y e a r s ) . The amount o f i n t e r e s t he would pay i n 5 y e a r s was $1,778.76, which c o n v e r t s t o a n a n n u a l r a t e o f s i m p l e i n t e r e s t of 13.31% p e r annum. Under s e c t i o n 5-527, R.C.M. 1947, t h e maximum i n t e r e s t i n terms o f add-on o r d i s c o u n t i n t e r e s t t h a t can b e l e g a l l y t a k e n under Montana law on $4,500 i s $1,794.10, computed: $11.00 p e r $100 per year on t h e f i r s t $300 f o r 5 y e a r s (33.00 x 5) = .........................$165.00 $9.00 p e r $100 p e r y e a r on t h e n e x t $700 f o r 5 y e a r s ($63.00 x 5 ) = ........................ 315.00 $7.00 p e r $100 p e r year on t h e n e x t $3,754.64 f o r 5 y e a r s [$3,500 + 244.64 + 10.00 = $3,754.641 ($262.82 x 5) = ................... 1,314.10 T o t a l a l l o w a b l e i n t e r e s t ...$ 1,794.10. See Montana National Bank o f Bozeman v. Kolokotrones, , Mont . 535 P.2d 1017, 32 St.Rep. 526,529. Defendant was charged i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e l e s s than t h e maximum allowed by s e c t i o n 5-527, R.C.M. i s not usurious. 1947. The i n t e r e s t r a t e Defendant o f f e r e d no evidence t h a t he had made any payments o t h e r than t h o s e presented by t h e Bank; nor d i d he c o n t e s t t h e mathematic c a l c u l a t i o n s of t h e Bank. Although never c l e a r l y s t a t e d by defendant, he seems t o argue t h e r e i s some s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Bank f i l e d a UCC f i n a n c i n g statement which only d e s c r i b e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r e a l p r o p e r t y (on which t h e home improvements were t o be made from some o f t h e loan proceeds) and n o t t h e improvements t o be made, a s i t p e r t a i n s t o t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e l o a n , i . e . , a charge a g a i n s t t h e r e a l e s t a t e and a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n from i n s t a l l m e n t n o t e t o a conventional loan governed by s e c t i o n 47-125, R.C.M. 1947, which l i m i t s i n t e r e s t t o 10% p e r annum. Although t h e f i n a n c i n g statement was i n t h i s c a s e i n c o r r e c t l y completed i n t h a t i t named o n l y t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y and UCC r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e f i x t u r e s and t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y be l i s t e d i n s e c u r i t y agreements and f i n a n c i n g s t a t e m e n t s , n e v e r t h e l e s s t h e r e i s no a u t h o r i t y o f f e r e d t h a t would support t h e argument t h a t t h i s f i n a n c i n g statement could p u r p o r t t o c l a i m an i n t e r e s t i n r e a l property. 1947. See Section 867A-9-102(1), s e c t i o n 87A-9-104(j),R.C.M. A f i n a n c i n g statement does n o t meet t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n a l requirements of a mortgage ( s e c t i o n 52-202,R.C.M. 1947) and could n o t be f i l e d a s a mortgage ( s e c t i o n 52-212, R.C.M. 1947). Defendant c i t e s no c a s e law and we can f i n d none, t h a t a f i n a n c i n g statement of t h i s type can c l a i m an i n t e r e s t i n r e a l p r o p e r t y t o accomplish t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n argued h e r e . Defendant a l s o contends t h e f i l i n g of a UCC f i n a n c i n g statement was a s l a n d e r of t i t l e a g a i n s t h i s r e a l p r o p e r t y d e s c r i b e d i n t h a t statement. contention. He c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y i n support of t h i s I n 50 Am J u r 2d, L i b e l and S l a n d e r , 5541, p. 1060, appears t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of s l a n d e r of t i t l e : "One who m a l i c i o u s l y p u b l i s h e s f a l s e m a t t e r which b r i n g s i n q u e s t i o n o r d i s p a r a g e s t h e t i t l e t o p r o p e r t y , thereby c a u s i n g s p e c i a l damage t o t h e owner, may be h e l d l i a b l e i n a c i v i l a c t i o n f o r damages. The e s s e n t i a l elements of t h e cause of a c t i o n , which a r e subsequently d i s c u s s e d , a r e t h e u t t e r i n g and p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e slanderous words by t h e defendant, t h e f a l s i t y o f t h e words, malice, and s p e c i a l damages. The a c t i o n i s n o t f o r t h e words spoken, b u t f o r s p e c i a l damages f o r t h e l o s s s u s t a i n e d by reason of t h e speaking and p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e s l a n d e r . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) S e e - C o n t i n e n t a l Supply Co. v. P r i c e , 126 Mont. 363, 374, 251 The s o - c a l l e d "slander" n o t being a c t i o n a b l e b u t t h e r e s u l t i n g s p e c i a l damages being t h e b a s i s f o r t h e a c t i o n , an averment o f s p e c i a l damages i s necessary. Co. v. P r i c e , surpa. Rule 9 ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P., C o n t i n e n t a l Supply s p e c i f i c a l l y pro- vides : "When items of s p e c i a l damage a r e claimed, they s h a l l be s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d . " The complaint, o r i n t h i s i n s t a n c e t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m , must show t h a t t h e s p e c i a l damages a r e t h e n a t u r a l and probable consequence of t h e s l a n d e r . I n h i s counterclaim, defendant c l a i m s he was damaged t o t h e e x t e n t of $5,000 by t h e s l a n d e r . t o t h e ~ a n k ' sI n t e r r o g a t o r y No. 25, defendant answered: I n response "INTERROGATORY No. 25: I n paragraph I V of Counterclaim, you a l l e g e s l a n d e r of t i t l e and damages t h e r e f o r , i n t h e sum o f $5,000.00. P l e a s e s t a t e how you have i n c u r r e d such damages and e x p l a i n i n d e t a i l how you have computed t h i s a l l e g e d amount of damages. The $5,000.00 damage c l a i m i s f o r g e n e r a l "ANSWER: dama e s s u s t a i n e d by t a k i n g a s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t i n p r o p e r t y which i s n o t permitted by t h e s t a t u t e s of t h e S t a t e of Montana and t h e c o s t s and expenses of m defending t h i s a c t i o n . I f (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) y & F a i l u r e t o support t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e f i l i n g of t h e UCC f i n a n c i n g statement c o n s t i t u t e s s l a n d e r , and more important t h e defendant ' s own admission concerning s p e c i a l damages, h i s c l a i m of s l a n d e r of t i t l e f a i l s . The t h i r d i s s u e on appeal i s t h e c l a i m of defendant t h a t t h e Bank should have procured l i f e insurance on t h e l i f e o f d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e , a c o s i g n e r on t h e promissory n o t e and s i n c e It i s elementary t h a t b e f o r e defendant can p r e v a i l on deceased. such a c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e Bank, he must p r e s e n t competent evidence t h e Bank had a l e g a l duty t o procure such insurance. presented no such evidence. Defendant He admitted i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he never p a i d t h e premium f o r any i n s u r a n c e , o t h e r than t h a t on h i s own l i f e . The Bank was never given money by him t o purchase such i n s u r a n c e , n o r could i t have purchased i t , even i f money had been given. The i n s u r a n c e a p p l i c a t i o n form of Transwestern L i f e Insurance Company, t h e i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r involved h e r e , s p e c i f i cally stated: *** i n t h e c a s e of more than one d e b t o r on t h e same d e b t , t h e f i r s t named d e b t o r only s h a l l be e l i g i b l e f o r insurance. 1 1 " Defendant next r a i s e s t h e i s s u e of t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e c o u r t ' s award of $1,000.00 a t t o r n e y f e e s . The r u l e was very r e c e n t l y enunciated by t h i s Court i n Crncevich v. Georgetown Recreation Corp. , Mont 11 . , 541 P.2d 56, 59, 32 St.Rep. 963, 968: To be s u r e t h e r e i s a s p l i t among t h e s t a t e s a s t o t h e need f o r proof of a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e when one i s c o n t r a c t e d f o r o r appears on t h e f a c e of a note. See 18 A.L.R.3d 733, 736, 740. But i n c o n t e s t e d c a s e s w e a r e i n c l i n e d to f o l l o w t h o s e s t a t e s r e q u i r i n g t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f proof from which a r e a s o n a b l e f e e may be determined. To award a f e e i n such a c a s e w i t h o u t proof would b e L O d i s r e g a r d t h e fundamental r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e . An award o f f e e s , l i k e any o t h e r award, must b e based on competent evidence. See L y l e v. L y l e , ( F l a . 1964) 167 So.2d 256, 257. Furthermore t h e proper determination of a l e g a l f e e i s c e n t r a l t o t h e e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e and t h e maintenance of p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e bench and b a r . See Baruch v. G i b l i n , 122 F l a . 5 9 , 164 So. 831,833. Because nf r e s p o n d e n t s 1 f a i l u r e o f proof t h e award o f f e e s was p r o p e r l y d e n i e d . 11 Evidence should have been i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e p r o p e r amount of a t t o r n e y f e e s due t h e Bank. I n F o r r e s t e r and MacGinniss v. B . & M.Co., 29 Mont. 397, 409, 74 P. 1088 ( a l s o c i t e d i n C r n c e v i c h ) , t h i s Court e s t a b l i s h e d these guidelines: 11 1 The c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e compensation t o b e r e c o v e r e d a r e t h e amount and c h a r a c t e r o f t h e s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d , t h e l a b o r , t i m e and t r o u b l e i n v o l v e d , t h e c h a r a c t e r and importance o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n i n which t h e s e r v i c e s w e r e r e n d e r e d , t h e amount o f money o r t h e v a l u e of p r o p e r t y t o b e a f f e c t e d , t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l and e x p e r i e n c e c a l l e d f o r , t h e c h a r a c t e r and s t a n d i n g 9 : The i n t h e i r profession of t h e a t t o r n e y s . r e s u l t s e c u r e d by t h e s e r v i c e s o f t h e a t t o r n e y s may be c o n s i d e r e d a s a n i m p o r t a n t element i n d e t e r m i n i n g r h e i r value. 111 -1- -L 9 , - A fi rb * Without evidence of any o f t h e above f a c t o r s b e i n g i n t r o d u c e d i n che d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h e award o f $1,000.00 i n a t t o r n e y fees was improper. Rule 56 ( c ) , M.R. Civ. P . , p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : h he judgment sought s h a l l b e r e n d e r e d f o r t h w i t h i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e show t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y is e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. 11 - 4 f t e r a thorough review o f t h e f a c t s and i s s u e s o f t h i s )case, w e Eind t h e r e was no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t 2nd t h e noving p a r t y , t h e Bank, was e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a n a c t e r of law. this issue. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d on ('he juugriierlt J J ~ c n e d i s ' i r i c c court *JII tile i s s u e of a'icozney fees i s v a c a t e d and t h e c a u s e remanded f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e p r o p e r a t t o r n e y f e e s t o b e awarded. ..---- - Justices.

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.