MARVIN v HARGRAVE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-83 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 NEWTON MARVIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . C. LEO HARGRAVE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead. Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and Phillips, Kalispell, Montana Daniel Johns argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Hash, Jellison, O'Brien and Bartlett, Kalispell, Montana Kenneth O'Brien argued, Kalispell, Montana Submitted: September 12, 1980 ~ecided: @ T2 2 1980 @ Mr. 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 C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e Honorable R o b e r t C . Sykes, F l a t h e a d County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , f o l l o w i n g a n o n j u r y t r i a l , awarding p l a i n t i f f Newton Marvin t h e sum of $3,736.24 p u r s u a n t t o a l a n d c l e a r a n c e c o n t r a c t . Defendant C . Leo Hargrave and h i s w i f e e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n l a n d c l e a r i n g agreement w i t h Bruce K i s e r on August 1 6 , 1974, f o r t h e p u r p o s e of c o n v e r t i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 acres of t i m b e r l a n d i n t o a d d i t i o n a l f a r m l a n d . According t o t h e agreement, K i s e r was t o c u t "- t i m b e r , e x c e p t a s p e n , all and c l e a r stumps and b r u s h and p i l e same i n a s c l e a r a manner a s p o s s i b l e i n r e t u r n f o r a l l t i m b e r r i g h t s . " The c o n t r a c t continued: "Large stumps w i l l b e t r i e d , and i f t h e y c a n ' t b e moved t h e y may be l e f t . Timber w i l l b e c u t t o t h e brow of t h e s l o p e s f o r s h e l t e r b e l t , a l s o s h e l t e r from A.M.C. Road. A l l s l a s h d i s p o s a l money w i l l go t o Bruce f o r c l e a r i n g H a r r d i n g l o g g i n g job--also s l a s h from t h i s job." K i s e r began c l e a r i n g t h e l a n d , b u t had c l e a r e d o n l y a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f t h e 100 a c r e s when, w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of Leo Hargrave on November 2, 1974, he a s s i g n e d h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r a c t t o Newton Marvin. A t t h e t i m e of t h e a s s i g n - ment, Hargrave e x p l a i n e d t o Marvin t h a t t h e l a n d w a s b e i n g c l e a r e d s o t h a t i t would be s u i t a b l e f o r f a r m i n g . For ap- p r o x i m a t e l y two y e a r s , Marvin performed t h e c o n t r a c t a s req u i r e d , removing t h e t i m b e r and r e c e i v i n g t h e money from i t s sale. Marvin c e a s e d work i n November 1977. By t h i s t i m e Marvin had c l e a r e d t h e p r o p e r t y s o a s t o comply w i t h t h e t e r m s of a S t a t e F i r e Hazard Reduction Agreement which had been e x e c u t e d f o r t h e a c r e a g e by Hargrave w i t h t h e Montana S t a t e Department of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n (DNRC) i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s e c t i o n 76-13-408, MCA. The r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h i s agreement h a v i n g been m e t , DNRC i n formed Hargrave t h a t t h e remaining s l a s h d i s p o s a l d e p o s i t b e i n g h e l d under t h e agreement was no l o n g e r n e c e s s a r y and could be r e t r i e v e d . I n accordance with t h e assigned c o n t r a c t , an i n i t i a l s l a s h d e p o s i t , r e l e a s e d e a r l i e r by DNRC, was p a i d t o Marvin by Hargrave. The payment was made d u r i n g t h e two-year p e r i o d Marvin worked on t h e l a n d . The l a s t s l a s h d e p o s i t of $3,616.24 was r e t u r n e d i n March 1978. However, i n s t e a d of p a y i n g t h i s sum t o Marvin, Hargrave r e t a i n e d t h e money s i n c e h e b e l i e v e d t h a t Marvin had n o t f u l l y performed under t h e contract. I n a n a t t e m p t t o s e c u r e t h e monies c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s l a s h d e p o s i t , Marvin f i l e d a c l a i m and n o t i c e of a m e c h a n i c ' s l i e n on March 1 0 , 1978. Marvin t h e n f i l e d s u i t on J u n e 2 2 , 1978, a l l e g i n g t h a t Hargrave had f a i l e d t o pay him t h e s l a s h d i s p o s a l d e p o s i t i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r s e r v i c e s performed i n c l e a r i n g t h e land. Marvin asked f o r $3,840.04 i n damages, p l u s a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d be s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s a p p l i e d t o t h e judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the lien. Hargrave c o u n t e r c l a i m e d a l l e g i n g t h a t b e c a u s e o f M a r v i n ' s f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y perform t h e c o n t r a c t h e l o s t t h e u s e of t h e 100 a c r e s a s farmland f o r a p e r i o d of t h r e e y z a r s and u n l e s s Marvin p r o c e e d s t o p r o p e r l y complete t h e performance due, h e w i l l l o s e f u t u r e u s e of t h e l a n d . Hargrave s t a t e d h i s damages were a s y e t undetermined. During t r i a l Hargrave s o u g h t t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e showing c e r t a i n e x p e n d i t u r e s h e had made i n c o m p l e t i n g t h e work a l l e g e d l y l e f t undone by ~ a r v i n . Marvin o b j e c t e d on t h e ground t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was i n c o m p e t e n t , i r r e l e v a n t and i m m a t e r i a l t o any i s s u e i n t h e c a u s e and t h a t i t was beyond t h e s c o p e of any c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Hargrave had s e t f o r t h i n t h e case. The t r i a l c o u r t p r o v i s i o n a l l y a l l o w e d t h e e v i - dence t o be i n t r o d u c e d s u b j e c t t o M a r v i n ' s r i g h t t o renew h i s o b j e c t i o n a t t h e c o m p l e t i o n of a l l t e s t i m o n y . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e t r i a l , Marvin by w r i t t e n motion renewed h i s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e e v i d e n c e . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion on t h e ground t h a t t h e c l a i m e d e x p e n s e s w e r e o u t s i d e t h e scope of t h e p l e a d i n g s and t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r and t h a t d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t t e s t i mony a t t r i a l t h a t a c l a i m o r b i l l f o r s a i d e x p e n s e s was e v e r p r e s e n t e d t o Marvin. Judgment i n f a v o r of Marvin f o r $3,736.24 was e n t e r e d on September 1 7 , 1979. The judgment was based on t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t Hargrave had w r o n g f u l l y c o n v e r t e d t h e s l a s h d i s p o s a l monies. Following e n t r y o f judgment, Hargrave moved t h e c o u r t , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s ; f o r judgment f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t ; f o r a new t r i a l ; and f o r l e a v e t o amend t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s o a s t o conform w i t h t h e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s made i n c o m p l e t i n g t h e c l e a r i n g of h i s land. D e f e n d a n t ' s motions w e r e d e n i e d , and amended f i n d i n g s w e r e f i l e d on October 9, 1979, a g a i n f i n d i n g t h a t Hargrave's a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d conversion. The c o u r t t h e n o r d e r e d t h a t e a c h p a r t y have o f f s e t t i n g judgments a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r f o r $1,000 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s . Hargrave was a l l o w e d a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 71-3-124, MCA, b e c a u s e Marvin had f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h h i s m e c h a n i c ' s l i e n . grave appeals. On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : Har- 1. id t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t e r r i n s t r i k i n g a l l e v i d e n c e t p e r t a i n i n g t o monies expended o r a b o u t t o b e expended by defendant f o r c l e a r i n g h i s land? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r by n o t p e r m i t t i n g amend- ment of t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s o a s t o m e e t t h e o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s was beyond t h e s c o p e of t h e p l e a d i n g s ? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by awarding a t t o r n e y fees to plaintiff? A s t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , w e note t h a t p l a i n t i f f brought t h i s s u i t a l l e g i n g t h a t , a l t h o u g h he had performed i n accordance with t h e land c l e a r i n g c o n t r a c t , defendant refused t o r e l e a s e t o p l a i n t i f f c e r t a i n s l a s h d i s p o s a l monies due and owing a s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Defendant i n r e s p o n s e d e n i e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f had f u l l y performed under t h e c o n t r a c t and a l l e g e d , by way of a c o u n t e r c l a i m , t h a t b e c a u s e of t h i s f a i l u r e , d e f e n d a n t l o s t t h e u s e of h i s l a n d a s f a r m l a n d f o r a p e r i o d of a t l e a s t t h r e e y e a r s . The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t where a p e r s o n by h i s c o n t r a c t c h a r g e s h i m s e l f w i t h a n o b l i g a t i o n , p o s s i b l e and l a w f u l , t o b e performed, h e must perform i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e con- tract t e r m s . Smith v . Zepp ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 358, 567 P.2d 923; Brown v . F i r s t F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n of G r e a t F a l l s ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 79, 460 P.2d 97; 17A C.J.S. C o n t r a c t s , 8459 a t 594. I t h a s a l s o been s t a t e d t h a t a v a l i d d e f e n s e t o a n a c t i o n on a c o n t r a c t arises when t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o perform t h e a c t a l l e g e d l y r e q u i r e d was d e p e n d e n t on some o t h e r a c t i v i t y which t h e o t h e r p a r t y w a s t o d o , b u t f a i l e d t o s o perform ( i . e . , performance of a c o n d i t i o n i s p r e c e d e n t t o t h e r i g h t of payment) al. . See White v. H u l l s , e t ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 59 Mont. 98, 195 P. 850; 17A C.J.S. 5452 a t 566. Contracts, I n t h i s i n s t a n c e d e f e n d a n t , i n h i s answer t o t h e comp l a i n t , d e n i e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f f u l l y performed under t h e i r contract. Defendant t h e n a l l e g e d a t t r i a l t h a t b e c a u s e of p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e he was r e l i e v e d o f any c o n t r a c t u a l d u t y t o r e l e a s e t h e s l a s h d i s p o s a l money t o p l a i n t i f f as payment for services. With t h i s b e i n g t h e c a s e , d e f e n d a n t was e n t i t l e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of h i s p o s i t i o n . The i s s u e now becomes whether t h e r e j e c t e d e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n a s s t a t e d above. The o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e d e a l s w i t h e x p e n d i t u r e s made by d e f e n d a n t i n h i r i n g o t h e r s t o complete t h e work a l l e g e d l y l e f t undone by p l a i n t i f f . C e r t a i n l y , when a d e f e n d a n t i s r e q u i r e d t o expend money t o h i r e o t h e r s t o work i n c l e a r i n g l a n d , which a p l a i n t i f f under c o n t r a c t was t o clear as "clear a s possible," t h i s gives r i s e t o an inference t h a t p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o f u l l y perform under h i s c o n t r a c t . Such i s t h e c a s e h e r e , and t h u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have a l l o w e d d e f e n d a n t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e of t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s t o s u p p o r t h i s d e n i a l o f p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he ( p l a i n t i f f ) f u l l y performed and w a s e n t i t l e d t o t h e s l a s h d i s p o s a l money. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t d o e s n o t f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n a s t o nonperformance under t h e g i v e n c o n t r a c t i s determinative i n t h i s case. W e merely c o n c l u d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d have been p e r m i t t e d t o i n t r o d u c e t h e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of t h a t d e f e n s e . Nor do w e f i n d t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o admit t h e evidence c o n s t i t u t e s reversible error. Defendant a t t r i a l was a b l e t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e showing t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e l a n d a f t e r p l a i n t i f f f i n i s h e d h i s work, a s w e l l a s e v i d e n c e t h a t h e h i r e d o t h e r s t o f i n i s h work a l l e g e d l y l e f t undone by p l a i n t i f f . Defen- d a n t was o n l y d e n i e d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h e e x p e n s e s he i n c u r r e d i n h i r i n g t h e o u t s i d e p a r t i e s . Consequently, i n l i g h t of t h e evidence presented i n support o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n , t h e f a c t t h a t he w a s u n a b l e t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e a s t o h i s expenses d i d n o t s o p r e j u d i c e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e t h a t a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t would have been r e a c h e d had t h e e v i d e n c e been allowed i n . I n regard t o defendant's contention t h a t the D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t p e r m i t t i n g h i m t o amend h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m , w e acknowledge t h a t even a b s e n t t h e amendment t h e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e a r g u a b l y s h o u l d have been a l l o w e d t o show damages a s t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c l a i m t h a t he l o s t t h e u s e of h i s l a n d as farmland. However, b e c a u s e t h i s e v i d e n c e i s n o t o f t h e n a t u r e t h a t t o e x c l u d e i t r e s u l t s i n a d i f f e r e n t outcome and b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t found f o r p l a i n t i f f , t h e r e b y r e j e c t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g a t i o n o f nonperformance a s w e l l a s h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m , w e need n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s i s s u e f u r t h e r t h a n t o f i n d t h e r e was no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . A s t o t h e f i n a l i s s u e on a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t m e r e l y a s s e r t s t h a t b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t f u l l y perform p u r s u a n t t o t h e i r c o n t r a c t , h e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o p r e v a i l i n t h i s a c t i o n , and t h u s , i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s . As a l r e a d y s t a t e d , d e f e n d a n t was a b l e t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of h i s d e f e n s e of nonperformance and w a s n o t p r e j u diced a t the t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l i n t h i s regard. Having t h e n concluded t h e r e w a s no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r a t t r i a l , and p l a i n t i f f having p r e v a i l e d on a c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m , w e c a n n o t f i n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n awarding him a t t o r n e y f e e s . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s ' e r e b y a f f i r m e d . ,h W e concur: %.A4 J Chief J u s t i c e a Q ' US % 4 e .h tices

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.