HOLLINGER v MCMICHAEL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14600 IN THE SUPHEME C W O THE STATE O FJSXFANA O F F 1 979 Plaintiff and Appellant, G A Y L. McMICTWL, LDS Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable EXiward Dussault, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: George, W i l l i a m s & Benn, Missoula, mntana For Respondent: Skelton and Knight, Missoula, mntana Sdmitted on briefs: Decided: Filed: : . . ,. .~ April 5, 1979 Mh'f 1 6 1979 J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. P l a i n t i f f appeals t h e determination of the D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , M i s s o u l a County, r e f u s i n g t o award h i s c o u n s e l a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r work done on a s u c c e s s f u l a p p e a l and p o s t - a p p e a l m a t t e r s . T h i s a c t i o n began A p r i l 9, 1 9 7 6 , o n which d a t e p l a i n - t i f f f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t defendant f o r a breach of a r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g contract. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f ' s m o t i o n f o r summary judgment on O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1977. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d t h e r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r summary judgment, and p l a i n t i f f cross-appealed t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o amend t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e judgment c o n c e r n i n g attorney fees. T h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e m a t t e r a n d , on J u n e 1 9 , 1978, a f f i r m e d t h e summary judgment. That p o r t i o n o f t h e judgment a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s w a s r e v e r s e d , and t h e m a t t e r remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. H o l l i n g e r v . McMichael ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 580 P.2d 927, 35 S t . R e p . Mont. I 856. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r e s i d e d o v e r a h e a r i n g on September 21, 1978. On September 28, 1 9 7 8 , judgment was e n t e r e d awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r s e r v i c e s rendered through t h e t i m e o f h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r summary judgment. judgment, In its t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d : " [ t l h e Supreme C o u r t d i d n o t a l l o w c o s t s o r a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l t o e i t h e r side. T h e r e f o r e , t h e i t e m i z e d c o s t s and f e e s o n a p p e a l by P l a i n t i f f a r e hereby denied." P l a i n t i f f appeals t h e r e f u s a l t o award f e e s f o r s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d i n t h e a p p e a l and i n conjunction with t h e evidentiary hearing. Only o n e i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l : Did t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o award a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l work? I f s o , what amount s h o u l d b e awarded? W e f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o award a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l work done on t h e a p p e a l . d e f e n d a n t , i n a p p e a l i n g t h e summary judgment d e c i s i o n Here, of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, p u t p l a i n t i f f t o t h e expense of an appeal i n t h i s Court. Defendant f a i l e d t o o v e r r u l e t h e judgment of t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t . C supra. S e e , H o l l i n g e r v. McMichael, The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s r e q u e s t f o r f e e s i n c u r r e d by t h e a p p e a l . Plaintiff is e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e f e e s which r e s u l t e d from d e f e n d a n t ' s breach of t h e l i s t i n g agreement. The r e c o r d shows t h a t p l a i n t i f f s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i c t C o u r t a n a f f i d a v i t showing 58-1/2 is- h o u r s o f work f o r a t o t a l o f $2,071.88 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and $128.38 i n c o s t s , which w e f i n d r e a s o n a b l e . The judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and a judgment f o r $ 2 , 0 7 1 . 8 8 a t t o r n e y f e e s p l u s $128.38 c o s t s i s h e r e b y awarded. W e concur: ief Justlc QJl-4. Justices * , M. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : r I concur i n t h e f o r e g o i n g o p i n i o n , b u t want t o make i t c l e a r t h a t t h e b a s i s f o r awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s c a s e i s a p r o v i s i o n i n t h e r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g agreement between t h e p a r t i e s p r o v i d i n g f o r such award. 3h-Q 8 Chief J u s t i c e Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : I concur i n t h i s o p i n i o n on t h e same b a s i s a s d o e s Chief J u s t i c e Haswell.

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.